Canada’s proposed labour-dispute rules are now a live political fight inside Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, an omnibus bill introduced in the House of Commons on September 21, 2026.
Part 3 of the bill focuses on federally regulated labour relations. That includes sectors such as ports, rail, air transportation, telecommunications, banking and marine transportation. The federal government says Part I of the Canada Labour Code applies to more than one million employees and more than 22,000 employers.
The proposed changes would reshape several points in the bargaining process.
- Earlier bargaining in high-risk cases: Certain parties would have to begin bargaining between 200 and 180 days before a collective agreement expires if the previous agreement followed a strike, lockout or imposed binding resolution, or if the agreement term was five years or longer.
- Federal mediation involvement: Those parties would have to notify the labour minister and the Canada Industrial Relations Board, then engage with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
- Longer conciliation: The conciliation period would move from 60 days to 90 days, unless the parties agree to a longer period.
- A new special mediator process: The labour minister could appoint a special mediator no later than the 75th day after conciliation begins. The appointment would last 21 days.
- A public mediator report: If no agreement is reached, or if a tentative agreement is rejected, the special mediator would report on the issues in dispute, each side’s position, participation in the process, the likelihood of a deal, and recommendations. The report would be given to the parties and later made public with permitted redactions.
- Post-dispute mediation: If a strike, lockout or imposed binding resolution led to a collective agreement, the labour minister would have to appoint a mediator within six months to work with the parties on improving their relationship.
The bill would also add or expand measures on first collective agreements, contractor succession in certain retendering situations, wage-recovery enforcement, administrative penalties and paid medical leave rules. Those provisions matter, but the main controversy is the proposed rewrite of Section 107.
Why Section 107 matters
Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code currently gives the labour minister broad authority to act when the minister deems it expedient to maintain or secure industrial peace and promote the settlement of industrial disputes.
Bill C-39 would replace that language with a new structure. The bill would still let the minister take measures that, in the minister’s opinion, are likely to maintain or secure industrial peace. But it would add a separate set of conditions before the minister could direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to make an order that resumes or continues operations or duties, extends the term of a collective agreement, or imposes a binding method of resolving the dispute.
Under the proposed wording, those directions could be made only if a strike or lockout not prohibited under Part I of the Code is already underway, the minister has considered the special mediator’s report, and the minister is of the opinion that the strike or lockout adversely affects or may adversely affect the national interest.
The bill lists factors the minister may consider, including whether the stoppage has or may have a significant impact on the Canadian economy, whether it is causing or may cause serious social disruption, and whether the direction would affect freedom of association. The wording does not create a closed definition of national interest; it says the minister may consider any relevant considerations, including those factors.
Ottawa calls the proposal a guardrail
The federal government is presenting the changes as a way to reduce last-minute intervention by pushing difficult bargaining relationships into earlier mediation and clearer timelines.
Government background material says approximately 95% of labour disputes in federally regulated sectors are resolved without a work stoppage with help from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Ottawa says the bill is targeted at the smaller number of disputes that remain difficult to resolve and may have consequences beyond the bargaining parties.
During House debate on September 23, Transport Minister and Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon described the existing Section 107 power as relatively unfettered and said the bill would put specific guardrails around its use. The government’s position is that the bill would preserve collective bargaining as the main way to resolve disputes while adding structured steps before intervention in exceptional cases.
Unions say the guardrails are too weak
Labour organizations are challenging that framing. The Canadian Labour Congress said on September 25 that Bill C-39 would give the minister too much power to override legal strikes, and it called on Parliament to remove the proposed restrictions on the right to strike. CLC president Bea Bruske said, “These aren’t guardrails. They’re procedural cover for unchecked power.”
Teamsters Canada raised similar concerns on September 22, arguing that the bill would not create meaningful guardrails around Section 107 and could reduce employers’ incentive to bargain in good faith. Teamsters also pointed to positive elements in the bill, including first-contract arbitration and successor rights for contract retendering, while still calling the Section 107 approach a major problem.
Unifor’s summary of Part 3 said the Section 107 changes would be available only after a strike or lockout has occurred, not before one begins. But the union also warned that the national-interest criteria are broad and subjective, leaving room for future disputes over whether freedom of association has been respected.
The Air Line Pilots Association Canada also acknowledged measures it said could improve certain worker protections, including successor rights in aviation and protections against wage theft. Its objection was focused on the breadth of ministerial discretion and the undefined national-interest test.
Business groups welcome broader economic measures
Business groups have responded more favourably to the broader bill, especially its infrastructure, trade corridor and project-review measures. The Business Council of Canada called Bill C-39 a welcome step toward strengthening the economy, attracting investment and getting major projects built.
The Edmonton Chamber of Commerce also welcomed the bill’s one-year federal project review standard, permitting coordination and trade corridor measures. In the same statement, the chamber said it had recently called for a more durable federal approach to labour relations across nationally significant transportation infrastructure after the WestJet labour dispute.
The dispute over Bill C-39 is therefore not only about whether work stoppages can affect supply chains. It is about how much discretion Ottawa should have once a legal strike or lockout creates economic or social pressure.
What happens next
As of September 26, 2026, Parliament’s LEGISinfo page listed Bill C-39 at second reading in the House of Commons. The latest activity was debate at second reading on September 25, and committee study had not yet been reached.
If the bill passes second reading, it would move to committee study before report stage and third reading in the House, followed by consideration in the Senate and, if passed, royal assent. Committee hearings could lead to amendments, especially around the national-interest test, independent oversight, mediator reports or the scope of ministerial power.
Until then, the existing Section 107 framework remains in force. For federally regulated employers, unions and businesses that rely on transportation networks, ports, air travel or other national infrastructure, the next question is whether Parliament narrows the proposed intervention test or leaves ministerial opinion as the central trigger.
I can suggest related Tech Help Canada articles based on the topic you’re reading now.
Tech Help Canada Staff researches, writes, and reviews practical content for business owners and professionals. Our coverage spans business, marketing, SEO, technology, and the tools and systems people use to grow and operate online. We focus on clear, useful information backed by research, hands-on experience, and editorial review. Learn more about our team and editorial standards. Need help with something? Contact Us
