We have become almost accustomed to labour disruptions across Canada’s federally regulated transportation sector. Between 2022 and 2025, there were 54 work stoppages across federally regulated sectors, involving more than 226,000 workers, according to Employment and Social Development Canada. 

That should concern every Canadian. Disruptions in our essential transportation networks do not affect only the parties at the bargaining table; they affect workers across our supply chains. When a port or railway stops moving, the effects spread quickly. Farmers struggle to get harvests to market, miners cannot move potash and critical minerals, and manufacturers face delays, higher costs and shortages of essential inputs. These disruptions also make it harder for Canada to diversify trade, attract investment and grow the economy.

The federal government is set to introduce legislation this week to modernize the Canada Labour Code. With collective agreements expiring across Canada’s national railways and West Coast ports over the next 24 months, the question is whether the legislation will be ambitious enough to address a structural problem — or whether it will offer another incremental response to a situation that has become untenable.

READ MORE: Liberals to table legislation overhauling labour laws: sources

Canada needs labour rules that protect collective bargaining but make it harder for disputes to shut down the transportation corridors on which the economy depends. The central issue is not whether workers retain the right to strike; it is whether a strike or lockout should be permitted at critical trade gateways before the parties have exhausted a more rigorous and transparent process for reaching an agreement. The government is right to act. Now it must ensure its legislation is truly designed to deliver stability. 

For too long, labour disruptions have been dismissed as narrow disputes between employers and unions. In reality, a work stoppage at a port or railway quickly affects the entire supply chain. During harvest, a farmer cannot simply find another railway or switch export routes overnight. Grain remains in storage, delivery contracts are put at risk and the cost of finding alternatives is passed through the supply chain. Miners can face curtailed operations because products cannot reach tidewater, while manufacturers can be forced to slow or halt production because essential inputs are delayed. 

According to Conference Board of Canada modelling, a rail stoppage affecting Canada’s two Class 1 railways could reduce nominal GDP by more than $2 billion per week. The longer the disruption continues, the greater the cost. Disrupted goods flows can also increase transportation costs, shortages and delays, adding to inflation and making life more expensive for Canadian families. This is not a “business versus union” issue. It affects farmers waiting to ship crops, miners waiting to move product and workers whose paycheques depend on those supply chains.

The stakes are substantial. Canada’s West Coast ports handled more than $400 billion in cargo in 2025—approximately $1.1 billion daily—and moved nearly half of Canada’s trade outside North America.

Recurring instability is a barrier to trade diversification. Trade diversification will remain out of reach if customers in Asia and Europe cannot rely on Canadian ports and railways. A diverted vessel represents not only a lost shipment but a loss of confidence in Canada as a trading partner.

Canada’s legislation should be equally ambitious. In nationally significant transportation sectors, it should require a clear sequence of direct bargaining, conciliation and special mediation before a strike or lockout can occur. The special mediator should assess whether meaningful bargaining has occurred, require relevant information, narrow the issues in dispute and make recommendations. If no agreement is reached, the mediator’s report should be made public before either party can proceed to a strike or lockout. The parties should then have a final opportunity to negotiate in light of the report.

A defined pause should apply during special mediation and, where necessary, arbitration, preventing a strike or lockout while the process is underway. It would give the mediator time to make recommendations and allow the parties to negotiate before industrial action could proceed. 

The goal is not to remove the right to strike or weaken collective bargaining. It is to give employers, unions and government more chances to settle a dispute before it becomes a work stoppage, while ensuring that any temporary restriction on that right is paired with a genuine and effective path to resolution.

The legislation should also preserve effective public-interest tools for exceptional circumstances. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code should be retained, with greater transparency and a clear public-interest assessment where critical infrastructure is at risk. These tools should support collective bargaining, not replace it, while protecting the public from avoidable supply-chain paralysis.

The test for this legislation is simple: will it help the parties reach agreements before the next disruption, or will it leave Canada dependent on emergency intervention after the damage has been done? Getting this right will provide greater certainty for businesses and strengthen Canada’s ability to move goods reliably to market. This is not about choosing employers over workers. It is about whether Canada will continue managing its economy one crisis at a time or build the stability needed to keep trade moving, create good jobs and remain a reliable trading partner.

Robin Guy is a vice-president with Crestview Strategy.

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.