The Canadian ruling class is preparing a comprehensive overhaul of the Canadian Labour Code. This represents a full-frontal assault on the right to strike.
Two different reports—one from the federal government, and one from the Senate—have called on Parliament to further restrict or even remove the right to strike for workers in federally regulated sectors. This should serve as a warning to the labour movement.
Sham consultation
The government’s consultation, which ran a mere 38 days and ended on May 25, probed unions and federally regulated employers about potential changes to the Canadian Labour Code. While framed as a way to “modernize” labour relations in a time of “economic uncertainty”, the changes predominantly revolved around new ways to clamp down on strike activity: new designations for what counts as an essential service, revised timelines around bargaining and strike notices, and a new “special mediator” role.
Instead of focusing on improving workers’ conditions, which would go a long way in preventing strikes, this consultation was much more interested in finding ways to limit the right to strike.
‘Keeping Canada Moving’
The Senate’s June 11 report followed suit. The report, titled Keeping Canada Moving, emphasized the need to maintain “smooth operation of supply chains…[as] Canada seeks to diversify its trading partners.” For the Senate, maintaining smooth operations means ensuring that dockworkers and railworkers are unable to strike.
The Senate’s recommendations include re-defining what counts as an essential service, creating a special tribunal overseeing strikes in the marine and rail sector, and concretizing the power of the Minister of Labour under section 107 of the Labour Code. All of these recommendations embolden the government, or bodies appointed by them, to shut down strikes.
This includes the special tribunal deciding if a strike would “adversely affect the national interest,” allowing the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) to liberally apply the definition of essential services in order to crush strikes, and enabling the Minister of Labour to use an “economic harm threshold,” to implement section 107.
The Senate wants to “Keep Canada Moving” at the cost of workers’ democratic rights.
Doing the bosses’ bidding
These reports show clearly that the government is doing the bosses’ bidding. Long before the consultation, railway companies have been lobbying the government to make changes to the Canadian Labour Code. This is clearly a reaction to the increased number of labour disputes in the federal transport sectors in 2024 and 2025, which included ports, railways, and airlines. In 2024, the Liberals ended the Teamsters’ railway shutdown with a section 107 back-to-work order. But then in 2025, when the government tried to pull the same move on striking flight attendants, the workers defied the back-to-work order, and went out on illegal strike. The bosses are looking for ways to ensure this doesn’t happen again.
As Christopher Monnette from Teamsters Canada pointed out, “When you look at the consultation documents, there are a lot of things there that have been on corporate Canada’s wish list.” The Railway Association of Canada made several recommendations to the government in December, which they said would “reduce the likelihood of work stoppages.” This included references to the United States Railway Labor Act (USRLA), which makes use of a mediator to keep unions at the bargaining table and off the picket line. It’s no accident that such a recommendation was included in the government’s consultation.
This comes in the context of Carney’s fall budget, which promised billions in investment for new infrastructure projects. Canadian capitalism is looking to attract investment, and that means an end to “disruptive” strikes at ports or on the railways. As Pascal Chan from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce put it, “If other countries don’t believe that Canada can reliably deliver the goods because we have consistent labour disruptions, that’s going to be a significant problem for the economy.” Speaking from the point of view of the Canadian bourgeoisie, Chan conveniently leaves out the reasons for these “disruptions”.
Workers in these sectors have been squeezed by longer hours, unpaid work, and wages eroded by inflation. If this work is essential, then that should be reflected in workers’ wages and conditions. In fact, the claims about “essential work” are just a smokescreen to hide the real interests of the government, which are to increase the profits of the bosses, and thereby attract investment.
Fighting words without a battle plan
The union leaders have rightly denounced these reports. Speaking about the Senate report, CUPE National President Mark Hancock said, “The government should put this Senate report where it belongs—straight into the trash bin.” Gil McGowan, President of the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL), warned that, “Just because [the government changes] laws, that doesn’t mean that there won’t be less [sic] worker unrest. It doesn’t even mean there will be fewer strikes…[it] just means the strikes that happen will be illegal.” While this is certainly true, such strikes won’t happen—and certainly won’t win—without a fighting leadership.
Hancock and McGowan have both faced back-to-work orders, and both bent to the pressure of the government, to different degrees. To his credit, Hancock did encourage Air Canada flight attendants to disobey the back-to-work order. He even tore up the order in front of a crowd. But then he just as quickly pushed a bad deal on the workers which did not achieve their main demand: an end to unpaid work.
For his part, McGowan received massive support when he suggested that the AFL was planning to launch a general strike against Danielle Smith’s threatened back-to-work order against the teachers last fall. However, when Smith called his bluff and passed the order, he backed down.
Both of these examples prove that words are not enough. The workers were defeated because the leadership failed to back up their threats with action.
Defend the right to strike, defy the law
After years of repeated violations, the right to strike is now facing a full-frontal attack. This must be met with a serious response from the labour movement. The Ontario education workers in 2022 and the Air Canada flight attendants in 2025 clearly demonstrated that the only way to defeat unjust laws is to defy them—on the picket lines, en masse, at the moment that they are applied. This lesson should not be forgotten.
If the attack on federally-regulated workers is successful, it will weaken the entire labour movement, and similar measures will surely be taken up across the country. Any attempt to take away the right to strike must be met with a mass response from the labour movement. To defend the right to strike, we will need a national movement of defiance: solidarity pickets and mass demonstrations from unions across the whole labour movement. The labour leadership must begin preparing this movement now.
The ruling class is preparing for class war. The working class must do the same.
