As a leading figure in policy and legislation at the helm of Government Curated, Donald Gainsborough has spent decades navigating the intricate intersections of Canadian political economy and industrial relations. His expertise is particularly vital now, as Canada faces a transformative era under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s economic overhaul. With the “Building Canada Strong Act” at the center of national debate, Gainsborough provides a sharp analysis of how the federal government is attempting to balance the urgent need for international investment with the historical rights of the domestic workforce. In this discussion, we explore the friction between the Prime Minister’s “Team Canada” rhetoric and the reality of a labor movement that feels increasingly sidelined in the name of national interest.
With trade talks stalled and steep tariffs impacting major industries, Canada is pivoting toward economic autonomy. How is Bill C-39 intended to reshape the landscape for global investors, and where does it hit a wall with the labor movement?
The Building Canada Strong Act, or Bill C-39, is the cornerstone of a strategy designed to provide what Prime Minister Carney calls “speed, certainty, and predictability” to a market rattled by external volatility. Since we traditionally send close to 80 percent of our exports to the United States, the aggressive tariffs and weakened trade agreements of the last year have made diversifying our economic base an existential necessity. The bill aims to accelerate project approvals and create a more hospitable environment for the billions of dollars in private capital we need to attract. However, the labor movement sees a dangerous subtext in this quest for “certainty,” specifically the provisions that give Ottawa clearer powers to intervene in strikes. For the 800,000 members of CUPE, the fear is that “predictability” for investors is being purchased at the cost of the constitutional right to strike, creating a landscape where corporate interests are shielded from the natural friction of labor disputes.
The government has intervened in several high-profile labor disputes over the past few years; how has this trend influenced the way companies and unions now approach the bargaining table?
We have entered an era where the expectation of government intervention has fundamentally broken the traditional collective bargaining process. Since 2024, the federal government has used Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code eight times to end work stoppages in critical sectors like railways, ports, and postal services. A prime example occurred during the Air Canada dispute in 2025, where 10,000 flight attendants walked out only to have the government force them back into binding arbitration in less than 12 hours. This creates a “wait-and-see” strategy for employers, where companies like CN or CPKC feel little pressure to make concessions because they know the Labour Minister will likely step in to maintain “industrial peace.” When the threat of a strike is removed by the state, the union loses its only real leverage, leading to a dynamic where bargaining becomes a performance rather than a negotiation.
Critics argue that the “national interest” clause in the new legislation is a moving target. What are the risks of giving the Labour Minister such broad interpretive powers during a lockout or strike?
The primary risk is that “national interest” becomes a catch-all justification for political expediency rather than a strictly defined economic emergency. Under Bill C-39, the Minister must appoint a special mediator and wait for a public report, but the final decision to invoke Section 107 still rests on a subjective interpretation of what constitutes a threat to the country. Labour scholars point out that if the government decides any major disruption to the supply chain is against the national interest, then every effective strike—which is by nature disruptive—becomes illegal. This gives the Minister the power to pick winners and losers in the economy, often favoring the continuity of business operations over the fair distribution of corporate profits. It effectively turns the government into a silent partner at every bargaining table, one that has already signaled a preference for uninterrupted commerce over worker equity.
From an economic standpoint, is the disruption caused by strikes truly as damaging to the GDP as the government suggests, or are we overlooking the value of worker bargaining power?
There is a significant gap between the political rhetoric of “economic catastrophe” and the actual empirical data regarding work stoppages. Economists like Jim Stanford have noted that while a strike might hurt an individual company’s quarterly earnings, it is very rare to see a sustained impact on the national GDP or overall employment levels. Most of the production or transportation lost during a strike is delayed rather than permanently disappeared, with businesses often catching up once operations resume. Furthermore, we must remember that more than 95 percent of collective bargaining in this country actually ends without any work stoppage at all. By focusing so heavily on the costs of disruption, we overlook the economic benefits of strong unions, such as higher wages that drive consumer spending and productivity gains that come from a stable, well-compensated workforce.
The “Team Canada” rhetoric has become a national rallying cry in response to trade pressures. Can the government maintain this sense of national unity while simultaneously curbing the rights of the workers who comprise that very team?
This is the central paradox of the current administration’s messaging: you cannot ask workers to have their “elbows up” against foreign competitors while keeping their hands tied at the bargaining table. Leaders like Bea Bruske of the Canadian Labour Congress have been vocal that national unity should not be used as a pretense to erode the rights of the working class. When the government uses the “fear and disorientation” of a trade war to push through measures that restrict labor rights, it risks alienating the very people needed to build the projects Carney envisions. If “Team Canada” only benefits the investors and executives inside the summit halls while protesters outside are labeled a threat to the national interest, the social contract begins to fray. True national strength comes from a consensus where workers feel they have a stake in the country’s growth, not from a legal framework that treats their bargaining power as a liability.
What is your forecast for Canada’s labor relations as Bill C-39 moves through Parliament?
I anticipate a period of unprecedented industrial unrest and legal challenges that could stall the very projects the government is trying to accelerate. If Bill C-39 passes without significant amendments to protect the right to strike, we are likely to see unions like CUPE follow through on their pledge to defy the legislation, potentially leading to “wildcat” actions and mass demonstrations. This would create the exact opposite of the “certainty” that global investors are looking for, as the courtroom battles over Section 107 could drag on for years. The government is essentially gambling that it can manage labor through mandate, but history suggests that when you remove the legal pressure valve of a strike, the tension simply explodes in less predictable and more damaging ways. For the reader, the forecast is clear: expect the “elbows up” mentality to shift inward, as the fight for the future of the Canadian economy moves from the trade office to the picket line.
