Scholars Sound Alarm Over Canada’s Growing Restrictions on Collective Bargaining

In Quebec, Bill 89 (now Law 14) expands the government’s power to suspend strikes and lockouts when they are deemed to affect “the well-being of the population.” The law has already been invoked to curtail a daycare-workers strike. A companion measure, Bill 3 (now Law 4), is presented as a transparency reform but, according to scholars, adds bureaucratic burdens without enhancing internal union democracy.

The Maple

At the federal level, the Liberal government’s ongoing consultation on the Canada Labour Code proposes changes to bargaining timelines, strike mandates, expedited arbitration, and the use of section 107, which permits the minister to intervene in strikes deemed contrary to the public interest. Unions argue that repeated reliance on section 107 undermines the constitutional right to strike and encourages employers to hold out, expecting government-ordered resolutions.

The Maple

The second phase of the consultation, launched this month, asks stakeholders whether additional principles should justify invoking section 107. Labour experts note that most witnesses before the Senate were employer representatives, while only a few, such as Barry Eidlin, highlighted constitutional concerns.

The Maple

Scholars contend that the rhetoric framing strikes as economic disruptions masks a broader strategy to diminish collective bargaining power. They argue that strikes are an essential leverage tool, not a failure of negotiation, and that genuine union reform should focus on expanding member democracy rather than imposing restrictive oversight.

The Maple

• “We need stronger unions and more worker participation in them – not more restrictions,” — Collective of 70 labour scholars

The Maple

• “The idea for this op-ed was born in part from a panel at this year’s CAWLS conference in Winnipeg,” — Thomas Collombat, professor, Université du Québec en Outaouais

The Maple

• “Union corruption certainly exists, and in cases like we saw recently with the carpenters union in Ontario it has to be dealt with,” — Barry Eidlin, associate professor of sociology, McGill University

The Maple

• “We felt it was important to intervene now in the public debate around the right to strike because it’s clear that there is a concerted effort on the part of governments and employers to undermine this fundamental right,” — Barry Eidlin

The Maple

• “All the other witnesses were employer representatives who raised standard talking points about the economic impact of strikes and their ostensible effect on our reliability as a global trading partner.” — Barry Eidlin

The Maple