OTTAWA, ON, Nov. 3, 2026 /CNW/ -- The federal government is using concerns about labour disruptions to justify new powers to end legal strikes, without demonstrating that those powers would make Canada's economy more stable, says the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC).

The CLC disputes the government's portrayal of recent labour disputes as evidence of a collective bargaining system in crisis and its claim that greater ministerial intervention would prevent future disruptions.

"Canadians have every reason to expect reliable transportation, functioning supply chains and a strong economy," said CLC President Bea Bruske. "But there is no evidence that taking away workers' rights will deliver that stability or prevent future disruptions."

Despite several high-profile labour disputes, federal statistics show that working days lost in federally regulated private-sector industries, including ports, railways and airlines, declined by 35 per cent between 2023 and 2025.

Research also shows that government intervention can undermine stable labour relations. A 2010 C.D. Howe Institute study found that public-sector agreements imposed through provincial back-to-work orders were associated with more than triple the odds of another imposed settlement in the next bargaining round and 67 per cent lower odds of a freely negotiated agreement.

A separate 2019 peer-reviewed study by Michele Campolieti and Chris Riddell found a similar pattern in Ontario's police, firefighting and hospital sectors, where previous reliance on interest arbitration increased the likelihood of its use in subsequent bargaining rounds.

The CLC has proposed an alternative that would address genuine national emergencies without giving ministers unilateral power to end legal strikes.

"Economic stability depends on workers and employers having good reasons to reach agreements that last," said Bruske. "If the government wants fewer disruptions, it should be strengthening those incentives, not giving employers a reason to wait for Ottawa to intervene."

If the government proceeds, it risks constitutional challenges and resistance from unions determined to defend the Charter-protected right to strike, potentially creating more of the labour disruptions and economic uncertainty it claims to be preventing.

BACKGROUNDER

The federal government and employer organizations have cited recent labour disruptions and their economic costs to justify expanding the government's power to end legal strikes.

Recent disputes have caused significant disruption. But the available statistics do not establish that workers have gained excessive bargaining power, that Canada's collective bargaining system is failing or that expanded government intervention would produce greater economic stability.

Recent labour disruptions remain below historical levels, despite a sharp increase in 2023¹

Statistics Canada reported approximately 6.6 million working days lost to strikes and lockouts in 2023, the highest annual total since 1986. The increase followed three decades in which working time lost to labour disputes had generally remained substantially lower than in the 1970s and 1980s.

The national figures therefore reflect an unusually concentrated round of provincial public-sector bargaining, rather than a broad increase across all industries.

Sources: Statistics Canada, Days not worked due to strikes and lockouts, 2023; CUPE, Work stoppages and inflation; Bank of Canada, November 2023.

Working days lost in federally regulated private-sector industries declined by 35% between 2023 and 2025

Federal labour statistics show that working days lost in private-sector industries, including ports, railways, airlines and other transportation services, fell from 127,810 in 2023 to 83,150 in 2025.

Although the number of work stoppages increased, the total working days lost declined by approximately 35%.

These figures are relevant to claims that labour disruption is increasingly threatening Canada's trade competitiveness and investment climate. They show that, across federally regulated private-sector industries, the amount of working time lost declined over this period.

Working days lost do not measure the value of trade interrupted by individual disputes, and the figures include private-sector industries beyond transportation. They therefore cannot establish whether disruption specifically affecting ports, railways and airlines increased or decreased.

Source: Employment and Social Development Canada, Work Stoppages by Jurisdiction and Sector, 2023–2025. 

The economic cost of a strike does not establish that workers have excessive bargaining power

Federal statistics measure work stoppages, employees affected, duration and working days lost. They do not measure the reasonableness of employers' offers, the causes of bargaining impasses or whether employers anticipated government intervention. They also combine strikes with employer-initiated lockouts.

The economic consequences of a dispute therefore cannot establish which party contributed to the impasse or whether restricting the right to strike would have prevented it.

In its 2015 decision in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the right to strike is essential to meaningful collective bargaining because it helps address the inherent imbalance of economic power between workers and employers.

Sources: Employment and Social Development Canada, Work Stoppages: Technical Notes; Supreme Court of Canada, Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, 2015 SCC 4.

Canadian research finds that back-to-work legislation reduces the likelihood of future negotiated settlements

A 2010 C.D. Howe Institute study by Benjamin Dachis and Robert Hebdon examined the effects of government intervention on Canadian collective bargaining between 1978 and 2008.

The researchers found that when a public-sector agreement had previously been settled through a provincial back-to-work order:

• The odds of another back-to-work order in the next bargaining round were 3.41 times higher.
• The odds of arbitration were 3.10 times higher.
• The odds of reaching a freely negotiated agreement were 67% lower.

The researchers also found that imposed settlements were associated with lower real wages than comparable negotiated agreements.

The study concluded that back-to-work legislation can weaken the ability of employers and unions to resolve disputes through collective bargaining, increasing their reliance on government intervention in subsequent negotiations.

The authors recommended that governments facilitate freely negotiated agreements and minimize their reliance on back-to-work legislation.

Source: Dachis, Benjamin, and Robert Hebdon (2010), The Laws of Unintended Consequence: The Effect of Labour Legislation on Wages and Strikes, C.D. Howe Institute Commentary No. 304, pp. 16–19, Tables 8–9.

Arbitration can lead to repeated reliance on imposed settlements

A separate peer-reviewed study published in 2019 examined collective bargaining in Ontario's police, firefighting and hospital sectors between 1981 and 2012. Researchers Michele Campolieti and Chris Riddell found that previous reliance on interest arbitration increased the likelihood of using arbitration again in subsequent bargaining rounds.

Source: Campolieti, Michele, and Chris Riddell (2019). Interest Arbitration and the Narcotic Effect: Evidence from Three Decades of Collective Bargaining in Ontario. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 57(3), 421–452.

SOURCE Canadian Labour Congress (CLC)