Bill C-39 would give Canadian government broadest strike intervention powers in G7
OTTAWA — If passed, Bill C-39 would give the Canadian government broader unilateral power to end a legal strike than exists in any other G7 country, according to a comparative legal analysis commissioned by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC).
That includes Donald Trump’s United States, where even the President cannot unilaterally end a national-emergency strike and impose a binding settlement. U.S. law requires a threat to national health or safety, court approval and a temporary limit on intervention.
“Canada should be setting the standard for workers’ rights, not falling behind every other G7 country,” said Lily Chang, Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress. “If passed, Section 107 would give one minister extraordinary power to shut down a legal strike, with no parliamentary oversight and no one with the power to stop them.”
Canada’s Labour Code currently takes the same approach as other G7 countries, using targeted tools that limit the right to strike on national-security or public-health grounds. Bill C-39 would set Canada apart by giving a single minister sweeping new powers over workers’ right to strike.
G7 powers to intervene in legal strikes, from most limited to broadest:
| Country | Trigger | Government power | Guardrail |
| France | Urgent threat to public health or safety | Minimum necessary workers can be requisitioned | Necessity; proportionality; judicial review |
| Germany | Life or health risks | Restrictions through courts | Independent judicial oversight; proportionality |
| Italy | Serious and imminent harm to protected rights | Defer/shorten strike; minimum service | High threshold; limited intervention |
| Japan | Emergency adjustment | Temporary suspension during mediation | 50-day maximum; no imposed settlement |
| United Kingdom | None | Emergency powers cannot prohibit strikes | Statutory protection for labour action |
| United States | Threat to national health or safety | Temporary injunction, up to 80 days | Court approval under Taft-Hartley; temporary only; no executive power to impose settlement |
| Canada — Bill C-39, if passed | Minister’s view of “national interest” | Order work resumed; binding resolution | Minister retains final decision; no emergency threshold or fixed time limit |
If Bill C-39 passes with its proposed restrictions on the right to strike, the CLC intends to file a complaint with the International Labour Organization’s Committee on Freedom of Association, as part of a broad campaign to fight against the government’s undermining of the right to strike.
Canada has ratified ILO Convention 87 on freedom of association and Convention 98 on collective bargaining. The ILO’s freedom-of-association principles place strict limits on restrictions of the right to strike, including emphasizing independent safeguards where strikes may be suspended on national-security or public-health grounds.
“Canada cannot claim to champion workers’ rights around the world while weakening them at home,” said Lily Chang, Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress. “If this bill passes unchanged, we will take our case to the ILO and ask it to examine whether Canada is living up to the international labour standards it has committed to uphold.”
The Canadian Labour Congress is calling on Parliament to remove Bill C-39’s proposed restrictions on the right to strike.
