Backgrounder: Consultation document for Building Canada Strong for All - Powered by Canada’s Workers

Introduction

The Labour Program is assessing if updates to Canada’s federal labour policy are needed to support a modern and fair labour relations framework. This could include a modernized collective bargaining process and bolstered supports for workers. As part of this process, the Labour Program is engaging stakeholders to gather feedback and perspectives to help inform policy directions.  

The Labour Program will engage with First Nations, Inuit and Métis governments and rights holders and is also seeking ideas and perspectives from employers and employer representatives, unions and employee groups, and other key stakeholders on how best to modernize Canada’s labour relations framework. A number of measures that have been proposed to the Labour Program in various forums or have been recommended by Industrial Inquiry Commissions are being considered to strengthen the collective bargaining framework:

1. Revising the timelines for direct bargaining;
2. Revising the conciliation and cooling off timelines;
3. Revising the timeline for notice of strike or lockout;
4. Creating a new special mediator role;
5. Reviewing section 107;
6. Assessing examples of bargaining approaches from other jurisdictions; and,
7. Introducing expedited grievance arbitration provisions.

Additional measures that are being considered to strengthen labour relations and supports for workers include:

1. Exploring training supports for workers impacted by automation and artificial intelligence;
2. Strengthening protections against misclassification and wage theft;
3. Strengthening workplace health and safety protections, and working on labour mobility to harmonize training standards and regulations;
4. Extending successor rights in cases of contract retendering;
5. Sustaining the Wage Earner Protection Program (WEPP) to ensure its integrity; and,
6. Other potential changes to the Canada Labour Code that could help better support fair and safe outcomes for workers. Participants can also submit opinions and perspectives on other measures.

Consultations with stakeholders on the various measures will take place over April and May 2026. Stakeholders will have a range of opportunities to provide feedback, including through targeted virtual consultations, discussions through existing forums, such as the Labour Standards Advisory Committee and the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee, and through written submissions.

Purpose

The purpose of this consultation document is to provide a vehicle to gather views on a series of potential policy measures and/or legislative amendments to the Canada Labour Code (the Code). The feedback will inform the Government’s policy approach to strengthening the federal labour relations framework, including enhancing collective bargaining processes and bolstering supports for workers.

This consultation document provides context on the potential changes and outlines key questions for stakeholder feedback through participation in targeted virtual roundtables and in writing.

Written submissions are requested no later than May 18, 2026 to: esdc.nc.labour.consultations-travail.nc.edsc@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca.

By providing your feedback on this consultation document, you are confirming that you agree with the Privacy Notice Statement included as Annex A.

Context

Why are we consulting on these measures?

The Government is committed to supporting and strengthening industrial relations. This includes considering opportunities to strengthen the federal collective bargaining framework.

Following the 2023 labour dispute at West Coast ports, a previous Minister of Labour, Seamus O’Regan, appointed an Industrial Inquiry Commission (IIC) under section 108 of the Code to conduct a comprehensive review of the underlying issues in longshoring labour disputes at West Coast ports. The IIC provided its report and recommendations on May 8, 2025.

In addition to the IIC’s report, the government has received feedback that there could be opportunities to strengthen the federal labour relations framework. Practices from international and provincial partners could be considered to strengthen Canada’s federal labour relations framework. Our counterparts employ different strategies to advance workers’ rights while protecting their respective economies and communities. Some notable examples of strategies include, but are not limited to:

• Mandatory bargaining timelines (e.g., notice to bargain is required between 60 and 120 days before a collective agreement’s expiry in Alberta, 90 days prior in Ontario and Quebec, and four months in British Columbia);
• Essential services designations (e.g., Quebec, Alberta, and Italy);
• Sectoral bargaining (e.g., various sectors in Ontario, Germany, and Nordic countries); and,
• Federal intervention (e.g., United States).

Given these considerations and comparators, the Government is seeking your input on select recommendations of the IIC, as well as additional potential measures and/or legislative initiatives, with a view to strengthening industrial relations.

Who could be affected by potential changes?

The measures under consideration could affect federally regulated sectors covered by the Code, which defines the rights and responsibilities of workers and employers, and sets out federal labour law (see Annex B for a full list of industries in the federally regulated private sector).

Part I of the Code governs workplace relations and collective bargaining between unions and employers, containing provisions related to dispute resolution, strikes and lockouts, and outlining the labour relations rights and responsibilities of employers, trade unions, and employees.

Part II of the Code establishes provisions to prevent workplace-related accidents and injuries, including occupational diseases. Part II also applies to the federal public service.

Part III of the Code establishes and protects workers’ rights to fair and equitable conditions of employment, establishing labour standards for the federally regulated private sector.

As of late 2024, about 22,000 employers and 1,060,000 employees were covered by the Code in the federally regulated private sector.

The initiatives would not affect employers and employees in Canada working in sectors that are regulated by provincial governments.

What are the measures that are being considered?

1.     Revising the timelines for direct bargaining

The Code does not currently prescribe when parties must begin direct bargaining. Instead, it allows parties to bargain as early as four months prior to the expiry of their collective agreement.

To create greater certainty within the collective bargaining timelines, parties could be required to begin direct bargaining within a specified amount of time before the expiry of their collective agreement.

Questions:

• What is working well with the current direct bargaining process?
• What would you change about the current direct bargaining process?
• Should parties be required to begin direct bargaining before the expiry of their collective agreement? If so, how long in advance should parties be required to start bargaining?
• Should the Labour Program’s Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) play a role in early bargaining? If so, what role would be the most constructive?
• How could good faith negotiations be better incentivized during early bargaining?
• Would revised timelines improve the likelihood of parties reaching a collective agreement at the bargaining stage? Would they create challenges for the parties?
• Are there other approaches that could be taken to provide greater certainty within the collective bargaining process?

2.     Revising the conciliation and cooling off timelines

As part of the collective bargaining process, the conciliation period may take up to 60 days, unless extended by mutual agreement of the bargaining parties. During this period, conciliators from FMCS support the parties in entering into or revising a collective agreement. At the end of conciliation, the parties enter a 21-day cooling off period during which mediators are typically appointed to continue supporting the parties in reaching an agreement. After the cooling off period ends, the statutory right to strike or lockout may be acquired, provided that all the requirements are met. See Annex C for the timeline of the collective bargaining process and the requirements for acquiring the right to strike or lockout under Part I of the Code.

The 60-day conciliation period and 21-day cooling period could be revised to allow for better outcomes of good faith bargaining before a statutory strike or lockout is acquired. 

Questions:

• Do you suggest revising the current 60-day conciliation and 21-day cooling-off periods? How long should the conciliation and cooling-off periods be?
• In what ways would this revision impact your organization or members?
• What would be the impact of your suggested timelines on the likelihood of parties reaching a collective agreement?
• What are the risks of lengthening or reducing these timelines?
• What other measures could help incentivize good faith negotiations and reaching agreements at this stage of collective bargaining?

3.     Revising the timeline for notice of strike or lockout

Section 87.2 of the Code outlines the notice requirements for strikes and lockouts, requiring an advance notice of at least 72 hours to the other party and the Minister before commencing a work stoppage.

Once a notice of strike or lockout has been issued, parties involved in the labour dispute must prepare to shut down their operations in a safe and orderly manner. The time this takes varies depending on the sector and operational needs. The government is seeking feedback on the current 72-hour timeline in place. 

Questions:

• What is working well with the 72-hour notice period before a strike or lockout? What are the challenges?
• What are the risks or benefits of modifying the notice period?
• Are there other approaches that should be considered?

4.     Creating a new special mediator role

Currently, under section 105 of the Code, the Minister of Labour can appoint a mediator at any time to assist the parties in reaching an agreement. The mediator may make recommendations for settlement upon request of the parties or the Minister. Recommendations are generally requested in limited circumstances and depending on progress at the table. This ability has historically been used in limited circumstances and, when it has, these recommendations are generally not made public.

The IIC on West Coast ports proposed that a new special mediator, with a more structured role, could be created to provide additional support to federally regulated parties in resolving some labour disputes. Should the parties be unable to resolve the dispute, the special mediator would submit a report to the Minister with an assessment of the issues and potential next steps to conclude the collective agreement. The Minister could use the report to inform any decisions on whether further supports or intervention in the labour dispute is necessary for resolution. To advance transparency and encourage the parties to bargain in good faith, the report could be made public, in part or in whole.

The special mediator role would not affect the existing ministerial authorities under section 105 of the Code or the existing conciliation process.

Questions:

• Do you think a special mediator could be helpful in supporting parties to reach a collective bargaining agreement?
• At what stage of the collective bargaining process would the appointment of a special mediator be most beneficial?
• Should parties be required to provide information to a special mediator? What kinds of information?
• What would be an ideal timeframe for a special mediator to perform their duties?  How should the time be allocated for special mediation and report writing?
• Are there any additional tools that should be provided to a special mediator to support the successful conclusion of collective agreements?
• Do you see any benefits to a report to a Minister being made public? Would you have any concerns?
• Should the appointment of a special mediator delay the statutory right to strike or lockout? Why or why not?

5.     Reviewing section 107

As per the Code, section 107 provides that, where the Minister of Labour deems it expedient, the Minister may do such things as to the Minister seem likely to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to the settlement of industrial disputes or differences and, to those ends, may refer any question to the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) or direct the CIRB to do such things as the Minister deems necessary.

Since being added to the Code in 1984, section 107 has been used in various ways by labour ministers, including to direct the CIRB to order that operations and duties resume, impose binding arbitration, and extend the terms of the collective agreements.

The government is seeking stakeholder feedback on section 107 and its use in maintaining or securing industrial peace and promoting conditions favourable to dispute settlement.

Questions:

• What are your views on the use of section 107?
• What are the impacts of section 107 on the federal collective bargaining process?
• What is the most effective use of section 107? How could section 107 be utilized most effectively?
• Do you see a role for section 107 to help resolve disputes when parties are at an impasse?
• Are there other tools that should be explored to further assist parties in resolving disputes and reaching a collective agreement?

6.     Assessing examples of bargaining approaches from other jurisdictions

Different models to structure the collective bargaining process can be found in provinces, territories, and other international jurisdictions.

For example, sectoral bargaining allows for multiple employers and/or representative associations to negotiate with worker representatives at centralized bargaining tables to establish common terms and conditions across a specific sector or industry. It has been implemented in a variety of public and private sectors in provinces and, to a lesser degree, in some federally regulated sectors (e.g., the arts and longshoring industries).

Another example is essential service designations that require a certain level of services to be maintained in the event of a strike or lockout, or that the government may intervene to terminate a work stoppage in specific circumstances. For example, Alberta and Quebec require essential services designations in certain sectors and/or situations.

The government is seeking stakeholder feedback on these and other bargaining models that could be implemented in the federally regulated private sector.

Questions:

• In your experience, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the Code’s current model of decentralized, enterprise-level bargaining in comparison to labour relations based on sectoral bargaining?
  • What would be the anticipated benefits or challenges in introducing sectoral bargaining under Part I of the Code?
  • In your view, are there sectors that would benefit from sectoral bargaining and why?
• What would be the anticipated benefits or challenges in introducing essential services designations? In your view, would essential services designations strengthen industrial relations?
• What would be the anticipated benefits or challenges in introducing geographic certification in certain sectors or regions? In your view, would this strengthen industrial relations?
• Are there any models from other jurisdictions (in Canada or globally) that could be considered to support collective bargaining negotiations and promote harmonious labour relations?

7.     Introducing expedited grievance arbitration provisions

The government is aware that some bargaining parties have a significant backlog of outstanding grievances. The ability of parties to resolve grievances is integral to strong labour relations.

The IIC on West Coast ports recommended introducing expedited grievance arbitration provisions to the Code to help support the timely resolution of grievances and avoid grievance backlogs between parties during the term of a collective agreement.

Questions:

• In your view, would an expedited grievance arbitration process strengthen relationships between employers and employees? Are there any risks to introducing a new process?
• What are your views on grievance backlogs between parties? Do these backlogs present obstacles during collective bargaining?
  • If yes, what kinds of challenges or obstacles do they create?
  • Would an expedited grievance arbitration process assist with addressing backlogs? Are expedited grievance arbitration processes already included in your collective agreement? Why or why not?
  • If you already have provisions of this nature in your collective agreement, do they have an impact on the time it takes to resolve a grievance?
  • If you already have provisions of this nature in your collective agreement, could a supplemental expedited grievance process be complementary and help address backlogs?
  • What potential issues or overlaps with your existing collective agreements’ grievance processes would this create?  How could overlaps be avoided?

• How could the requirement for expedited grievance arbitration be included in the federal labour relations framework (i.e., for all sectors, specific to certain sectors)?
• What would be a reasonable timeline for an expedited grievance arbitration process to complete?

8.     Strengthening training supports for workers impacted by artificial intelligence and automation

The IIC report on West Coast ports highlighted the importance of supporting longshoring workers who are displaced by automation through training related assistance.

Although the IIC’s recommendation specifically focused on training supports for longshoring workers, the Government is interested in hearing from federally regulated sectors more broadly about supports for workers and access to training programs.

Questions:

• How are workers impacted by artificial intelligence and automation currently accessing existing training programs?
• Are workers impacted by artificial intelligence and automation facing barriers in accessing training programs? Do these workers have any additional training needs?
• How could retraining and upskilling help workers better adapt to changing industry sectors?
• Do training programs enhance collective bargaining? If yes, in what ways?

9.     Strengthening protections against misclassification and wage theft while improving timelines for workers’ access to their rights

Misclassification in the road transportation sector makes it harder for workers to get ahead and undermines fair competition. Wage theft occurs when an employee is not paid the wages or benefits that they are owed. While complaints can be filed with the Labour Program, it can be difficult to recover lost wages from employers.

Questions

• What tools or practices would you recommend that the Labour Program adopt to enhance its ability to crack down on misclassification?
• The Labour Program has been running a five-year program to crack down on misclassification in the trucking sector, which is set to expire in 2027-2028. Do you have any views on its impact?
• Besides existing Information Sharing Agreements with other government departments, such as the Canadian Revenue Agency, what other collaboration and/or partnership would benefit the Labour Program as it relates to the misclassification of drivers? And how so?
• How might the government strengthen deterrence against wage theft?
• What mechanism could improve employer accountability in sectors with persistent wage theft issues?
• How might the government better support workers who have experienced wage theft?

10. Strengthening workplace health and safety protections, and working on labour mobility to harmonize training standards and regulations

Enhancing Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) protections creates safer workplaces and support both workers and employers amid changing work environments. New measures could include integrating psychological safety into regulations to enable proactive management of psychosocial risks, expanding the Labour Program's proactive outreach and inspections to prevent injuries, modernizing processes through automation and AI to deliver faster responses and quicker resolutions for workers, and improving access to specialized expertise to address complex and emerging hazards while supporting effective compliance and enforcement.

Federal, provincial, and territorial governments are accelerating efforts to remove barriers created by OHS requirements, enhancing labour mobility across Canada. The Labour Program is focusing on two key measures: expanding harmonization of specific OHS topics that hinder mobility and efforts to develop an inter-jurisdictional training framework that aligns curricula across Canada. These initiatives will reduce variability, support effective compliance, and ultimately foster a safer and more mobile workforce for a stronger Canadian economy.

Questions

• How should Part II of the Canada Labour Code and its regulations evolve to address workplace hazards—such as fatigue or substance related impairment, use of artificial intelligence, psychological health and safety, and climate related risks? What changes or updates would you recommend?
• Are there tools and guidance that could be improved or introduced to strengthen positive outcomes for workers and ensure federally regulated workplaces are healthy and safe?
• What occupational health and safety topics would benefit the most from national harmonisation and improve labour mobility across Canada?
• What advantages do you foresee in adopting a nationally-harmonized training framework? What topics would you prioritize?

11. Extending successor rights in cases of contract retendering

Contract retendering is when a service contract changes hands from one contractor to another.

Under Part I of the Code, successor rights require that union representation and the collective agreement be preserved when a business is sold, transferred, leased or otherwise disposed of. However, this requirement does not extend to contract retendering, as this is not considered a sale of business under the Code.

Instead, subsection 47.3(2) of the Code ensures that, when a service contract changes hands, affected employees are not paid less than employees of the previous contractor who provided the same or substantially similar services. This equal remuneration protection was introduced to the Code in 1998 for pre-boarding security screeners and was extended to all airport employees in the federally regulated air transportation sector in 2021.

Moreover, in 2019, the government amended Part III of the Code to protect employees’ continuity of employment for labour standards entitlements when their employer changes due to contract retendering.

The government is seeking stakeholder feedback on contract retendering to potentially strengthen protections, including whether successor rights should be extended to contract retendering. 

Questions:

• In your experience, is your sector or industry affected by contract retendering? If so, in what ways?
• What are the benefits or challenges of extending successor rights in cases of contract retendering?
• Should successor rights be extended to cases of contract retendering across all federally regulated workplaces or only certain sectors, like airports?
• Are there any other issues you would like to raise regarding cases of contract retendering?
  

12. Sustaining the Wage Earner Protection Program

The intent of the Wage Earner Protection Program (WEPP) is to provide payments to employees when their employer is insolvent and is not expected to continue its operations.

Recent attempts to trigger WEPP payments in restructuring scenarios, where employers continue operating through restructuring mechanisms such as reverse vesting orders, represent a shifting of responsibility for employee wages from employers to public funds and highlight the need to reaffirm and clarify the Program’s intent.

Questions:

• What are your views on the impacts of the use of insolvency structures that result in the emergence of the true employer, such as reverse vesting orders (RVOs), on employees’ rights to wages and other related amounts?
• What are your views on naming a different entity (‘’ResidualCo’’) as the former employer instead of the true former employer?
• What elements of the WEPP legislation and regulations could benefit from amendments (e.g., changes to the timeline for the trustees or receivers to provide the required information)?

13. Other potential changes to the Code that could help strengthen labour relations and supports for workers

The Government welcomes suggestions on other potential policy initiatives, the proposal of new tools, and legislative changes to the Code that could help strengthen labour relations and bolster supports for workers.

Questions:

• Are there other potential changes that you would like to propose that could help strengthen labour relations and supports for workers?
  • For example, would amendments to paid sick leave provisions address stacking of benefits, or a definition of work in Part III of the Code improve labour relations?
• Are there gaps, emerging issues, or outdated provisions in the current federal labour relations framework that warrant consideration or modernization?

Annex A – Privacy Notice Statement for Submissions

The submission you provide as part of this consultation is collected under the authority of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESDA). It may be used and disclosed by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), including the Labour Program, for policy analysis, research and evaluation purposes. However, these additional uses and/or disclosures of your personal information will never result in an administrative decision being made about you.

Participation in this stakeholder engagement process is voluntary, and acceptance or refusal to participate will in no way affect any relationship with ESDC or the Government of Canada.

Your submission may be published – in whole or in part – on canada.ca, and/or compiled with other responses in an open-data submission on open.canada.ca. It may be shared throughout the Government of Canada, other levels of government, and non-governmental third parties.

Your personal information is administered in accordance with DESDA, the Privacy Act, and other applicable laws. You have the right to the protection of, access to, and correction of your personal information, which is described in the Personal Information Bank ‘Outreach Activities’ [PSU 938]. Instructions for obtaining this information are outlined in the government publication titled, Info Source: Sources of Federal Government and Employee Information 2024-2025, which may also be accessed online or at any Service Canada Centre.

You have the right to file a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada regarding ESDC’s handling of your personal information at: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/report-a-concern. 

If your submission includes unsolicited personal information for the purpose of attribution (for example, name, position), ESDC may choose to include this information in publicly available reports and elsewhere.

By providing a submission to ESDC as part of this process, you are consenting to its publication and dissemination.

Annex B – Federally regulated private sector

The federally regulated private sector includes:

• air transportation, including airlines, airports, aerodromes and aircraft operations
• banks, including authorized foreign banks
• grain elevators, feed and seed mills, feed warehouses and grain-seed cleaning plants
• certain activities of First Nations Band Councils
• most federal Crown corporations, for example, Canada Post Corporation
• port services, marine shipping, ferries, tunnels, canals, bridges and pipelines (oil and gas) that cross international or provincial borders
• radio and television broadcasting
• railways that cross provincial or international borders and some short-line railways
• road transportation services, including trucks and buses, that cross provincial or international borders
• telecommunications, for example, telephone, internet, telegraph and cable systems
• uranium mining and processing and atomic energy
• any business that is vital, essential or integral to the operation of one of the above activities
• private-sector firms and municipalities in Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut

Annex C – Collective Bargaining Process

See Figure 1 on this page: Collective Bargaining - Canada.ca. The timeline shows the steps in a collective bargaining process under Part I of the Canada Labour Code:

• Notice to bargain begins the collective bargaining process and there is no time limit for this step. Direct bargaining can begin as early as four months prior to the expiry of the collective agreement, or as otherwise provided for in a collective agreement.
• Next is the Notice of dispute. Once this is filed, the Minister of Labour appoints a conciliation officer within the following fifteen days to assist the parties in resolving their differences.
• The conciliation officer then has a 60-day mandate, unless extended by mutual agreement.
• After the termination of conciliation, a 21-day cooling off period begins. During this period, the Minister can appoint a mediator to continue to assist the parties in reaching an agreement.
• After the 21-day cooling off period ends, the parties acquire the statutory right to strike or lockout. However, this right cannot be exercised until the following conditions have been met:

1. A strike vote is taken.
2. 72 hours' notice is given.
3. A maintenance of activities agreement is filed with the Minister and the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB), or a decision is received from the CIRB.