For the past 10 years, CFIB, along with every employer organization in the country, warned that the scales in Canada’s Labour Code were being regularly tipped in favour of unions.  Bill C-4 in 2017 ended the requirement to hold secret ballot votes in all union certification drives and ended important financial disclosure requirements between unions and their members. And then in 2024, all parties voted in favour of Bill C-58, a ban on replacement workers in federally regulated workspaces. Employers warned these changes would lead to more strikes and economic uncertainty. There’s a reason why similar bills were always voted down in the past. But those concerns fell on deaf ears, and since then, we’ve seen a growing number of shutdowns at major supply chain players. In fact, last year, lost days due to strike action hit their highest level since 1990.

By their very nature, work stoppages in federally regulated workplaces never stay contained to the employer and union at the table. When a strike hits federally regulated infrastructure, hundreds of thousands of small businesses, their employees, and their customers wear the consequences. In fact, unions representing workers in ports, railways and airlines count on using the collateral damage to small businesses and the broader economy as bargaining chips.  

During the B.C. ports strike in the summer of 2023, a retailer in Ontario told us it was waiting on a shipment of footwear and clothes for back-to-school season and was worried that the short window to sell the inventory would close. A specialty beverage producer in B.C. had a critical shipment of 48,000 glass bottles stuck at the port. An Alberta construction business was facing delays in steel deliveries to complete projects on time.

The recent Canada Post strikes alone cost small business owners around $100 million per day in lost productivity and delays. A shop in B.C. saw its ecommerce sales down 38 per cent and had to lay off two employees. An Ontario plumbing company estimated it lost about $8,000 in revenue when mail delays held up client cheques, forcing staff to spend their own time and fuel collecting payments, arrange in-person drop-offs, and absorb extra credit card fees as clients switched payment methods.

None of these businesses did anything to cause the strikes. Nor did they have any recourse to end them. They just had to watch, wait and wonder if they’d still be in business at all.

In a typical collective bargaining exercise, both parties are motivated to reach a deal as they know the other side can inflict harm on the other during a strike or lockout.  But among federally regulated players in Canada’s critical supply chain, unions have an extra card to play. They can shut down broad swaths of the economy at the same time.  Canada’s massive geography and small population also mean our country only has a few players in key industries like ports, railways and airlines, allowing very few options for small firms and consumers when a labour disruption happens.

No labour dispute should be allowed to derail the economy like this.  And at a time when Canada is trying to regain its reputation as a reliable place to invest, fixing the problem becomes even more important. Closing our ports, stopping rail and air service, and cancelling the mail for months doesn’t send the message that Canada is open for business. 

Last week, Ottawa took a step in the right direction by proposing changes to the Canada Labour Code to help resolve disputes that put the larger economy in jeopardy. But the devil lies in the details, and these new processes will need testing in the real world. I worry these proposals may just be ignored by unions looking to test the government’s resolve as happened during the Air Canada dispute with flight attendants.

That cannot be allowed to happen.

If the bill passes, we expect the government to be ambitious and ensure critical supply chains are protected 100 per cent of the time. In protecting the right to collective bargaining, someone needs to be responsible for thinking about the public interest beyond the specific employer and union. 

If these new proposals don’t work, CFIB urges the government to ensure that federally regulated workplaces critical to the supply chain be designated as essential services, which have other prescribed approaches to negotiating agreements instead of strikes and lockouts. This already exists in occupations like border services and correctional officers. Nine in 10 small businesses support this approach. It should be noted that many federally regulated employers hate this idea as these agreements are often very lopsided in favour of unions. 

If we are trying to tell the world that Canada is a reliable place to do business and get things done, we can’t keep operating like this. Ottawa signalled it’s finally prepared to do something about labour disputes. It is worth a shot.  

Dan Kelly is the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB).

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.