Faced with a rise in work stoppages with an outsized impact on our economy, especially in the transportation sector, the federal government is right to amend the labour code to take their existing or projected impact into account, concludes the MEI in a new Economic Note published on October 1st.

"From our seaports to our airlines, work stoppages in the federally regulated transport sector are becoming increasingly frequent," says Gabriel Giguère, senior policy analyst at the MEI and author of the publication. "Unfortunately, more often than not, unrelated consumers and businesses feel the brunt of the pain that comes from these strikes and lockouts."

The author points to a recent increase in the number of strikes and lockouts in sectors such as airlines, rail travel, postal services, and seaports. From four recorded stoppages in those sectors in 2016, these have climbed to 12 and 10 for the years 2024 and 2025 respectively.

Giguère says this is a worrying trend, as such stoppages have an outsized impact on the rest of our economy.

In November 2024, lockouts in the ports of Montreal and British Columbia affected the transport of $1.2 billion in goods each day.

In August 2025, the Air Canada labour strike caused the cancellation of more than 3,200 flights, and affected some 500,000 individual travellers.

The simultaneous shutdown of CN's and CPKC's rail networks in August 2024 threatened the movement of $1 billion in goods for each day.

"By one estimate, the simultaneous shutdown of our rail networks could have yielded about 15,000 job losses, if it had lasted a mere two weeks," says Giguère. "Thankfully, the federal government found a way to intervene and mitigate the effect these work stoppages could have had, but it goes to show just how crucial it is to keep those sectors working."

In the three aforementioned cases, the federal government intervened by using Section 107 of the Labour Code, which gives the jobs and family minister power to refer questions to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

In recent disputes, governments have used this power to order work to restart, extend an expired collective bargaining agreement, or impose binding arbitration. Yet, there is no fixed criteria or test that exists in the Labour Code to define when and how the minister should take action.

In a report tabled last June, the Senate stated that reform is needed to clearly define the minister's power under Section 107 and the framework governing its use.

Giguère notes that Bill C-39 seems to take inspiration from Quebec's Labour Code, which allows its minister of labour to refer a dispute to an arbitrator when two conditions are met:

1. That a strike causes or threatens to cause serious or irreparable harm;
2. That conciliation or mediation has failed.

This proposed reform would increase transparency and ensure that the population's interests are taken into account in these decisions, says Giguère.

"By adopting such a reform, Ottawa would ensure that the collective bargaining process and the interests of all Canadians are equally respected," says Giguère. "When neither of the parties are remotely close to reaching common ground and ordinary Canadians are paying the price, the federal government is right to intervene."

You can read the MEI Economic Note here.