Building Canada Strong for All – Powered by Canada’s Workers: Targeted Second Phase : Consultation Document

July 2026

Introduction

Build Canada Strong aims to rebuild Canada’s infrastructure, grow our economy and create good jobs for Canadians.

On April 28, the Government of Canada launched labour relations consultations with unions, workers, employers and Indigenous partners to inform potential targeted changes to strengthen Canada’s federal labour relations and worker supports in the Canada Labour Code (Code) and the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (WEPPA). The process included 13 virtual roundtables with employers, unions, labour organizations and Indigenous partners, two additional national union roundtables, a Ministerial roundtable, discussions with the Tripartite Advisory Council, and written feedback. A total of 208 written submissions were received, providing a wealth of information and policy advice for the Government of Canada.

During the first round of consultations, the government consulted on ways to strengthen labour relations framework. This included consulting on revising timelines for direct bargaining, conciliation and cooling off periods and providing notice of strike or lockout; the creation of a new special mediator role; reviewing the use of section 107 to end a labour dispute; extending successor rights in cases of contract retendering; exploring bargaining approaches from other jurisdictions, such as geographic certification and sectoral bargaining; and expedited grievance arbitration.

The Government also consulted on other support measures. This included training supports for workers impacted by automation and Artificial Intelligence (AI); better protections against misclassification and wage theft; improving occupational health and safety (OHS) protections and harmonizing OHS training standards; and strengthening the Wage Earner Protection Program (WEPP). Stakeholders were also invited to suggest the adoption of practices from other jurisdictions and propose other changes. A What We Heard Report will be published later this year.

One of the key takeaways from the initial round of consultations was that there are aspects of labour relations in Canada that are functioning well, and any policy or legislative changes should be carefully targeted to address specific issues rather than applied in an overly broad manner. In response to this important feedback and building on the invaluable input from stakeholders, the Labour Program is initiating a second round of consultations in Summer 2026 to further examine important themes that were raised and solicit more precise feedback on a targeted subset of issues:

• reviewing section 107
• expedited grievance arbitration
• bad faith bargaining
• length of strike or lockout mandate
• first collective agreements
• medical leave with pay
• wage theft and enforcement
• other potential changes

As was the case in the initial round of consultations, there will also be the opportunity to raise additional issues or proposals that participants deem relevant.

Purpose

The purpose of this consultation document is to gather deeper and more specific feedback on policy issues related to the Code that were raised during the initial consultation period. The feedback gathered will inform potential next steps to strengthen 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 presents key questions for stakeholder feedback, either through participation in virtual roundtables and/or in writing.

Please send your responses no later than August 2, 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.

What are the additional policy topics?

1. Reviewing s.107

The Labour Code stipulates that The Minister, where the Minister deems it expedient, 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 the Minister may refer any question to the Board or direct the Board to do such things as the Minister deems necessary.

During the initial consultation period, the Government sought feedback on stakeholders’ views on the use of section 107. Unions and employers shared differing perspectives on the topic, with views varying from maintaining the status quo to providing additional protections on government use of s. 107 to eliminating the tool altogether. 

Building on feedback received, the Government is seeking further information on how to best maintain a balanced approach to industrial peace and dispute resolution.

Questions

• The consideration of industrial peace is already included in Section 107. Should there be further guiding principles governing the use of Section 107? If so, what would these further guidelines look like?
• Could such guiding principles include considerations such as the broader public interest (e.g., the magnitude of economic or social impacts), the input of an independent assessment or reporting to public about an impasse / breakdown of negotiations despite all available mediation efforts, or the length of time of a dispute?
• Should clarity or further definition be given to "industrial peace” as it is currently included in the Code? If so, what would that look like?
• Please identify any tools that aim to accomplish the objective of maintaining industrial peace as an alternative to the kind of powers contained in Section 107 of the Code. Are there examples from other jurisdictions?

2. Expedited Grievance Arbitration

During the initial consultation period, the Government sought feedback on the possible introduction of expedited grievance arbitration provisions to the Labour Code to help support the timely resolution of grievances and avoid backlogs.

Employers and unions shared mixed views on expedited grievance arbitration but agreed that, if established, the provisions should not override existing processes within collective agreements. A few stakeholders also suggested that the Government consider provincial approaches, such as those in British Columbia and Ontario, as potential models for an expedited grievance arbitration process in the federally regulated private sector.

The Government is interested in learning how it could better support parties with respect to grievances and backlogs.

Questions

• What are the primary structural or behavioural drivers of grievance delays (e.g., volume, complexity, incentives, resourcing, decision-making practices), and how do these factors interact?
• Are there specific models or practices from provincial jurisdictions (e.g., British Columbia, Ontario) or other comparable labour relations systems that have been effective in reducing grievance backlogs between the unions and their respective employers? What elements of those models would be most valuable to replicate or adapt in the federal context?

How can expedited arbitration mechanisms be designed to complement—not displace—existing grievance procedures in collective agreements, while still ensuring efficiency and consistency across workplaces?

3. Addressing bad faith bargaining

During the initial consultation period, employers and unions agreed that the best deals are reached at the bargaining table. Similarly, both employers and unions indicated that bad faith bargaining can affect parties’ ability to reach agreements at the bargaining table. Many also emphasized the importance of introducing tools to support good faith bargaining through potential incentives and/or penalties.

The Government is further engaging stakeholders on how it could better promote or incentivize good faith bargaining and encourage constructive engagement between bargaining parties.

Questions

• How can the Government help proactively address bad faith bargaining? Are there ways to further clarify or strengthen provisions in the Code in this regard?
• How can the Government help address concerns about bad faith bargaining, including frivolous and/or vexatious complaints?
• What has your experience been like with bad faith bargaining issues? How often are these issues referred to the CIRB?
• Could financial penalties or fines be an effective mechanism to address bad faith bargaining including frivolous or vexatious complaints? If so, how should such measures be designed and implemented to ensure fairness, proportionality, and effectiveness?

4. Length of a Strike or Lockout Mandate 

As part of the legal requirement to issue advance notice of a strike or lockout, a union must, pursuant to subsection 87.3(1) of the Code, receive a strike mandate through a secret ballot vote or, in the case of employers’ organizations, a lockout mandate through a secret ballot vote pursuant to subsection 87.3(2). Strike or lockout mandates are valid for 60 days. If a strike or lockout does not occur within the 60-day period, a new secret ballot vote is required.

During the initial consultation period, some stakeholders raised concerns regarding the validity period for strike mandates, with some suggesting that strike votes remain valid throughout bargaining and not be retaken every 60 days.

The Government is seeking stakeholder feedback on potentially revising the 60-day validity period to incentivize better outcomes at the bargaining table.

Questions

• What are the advantages or disadvantages of the current 60-day validity period of a strike mandate?
• In your view, should the length of the strike mandate, once obtained, be extended or remain valid for the duration of the collective bargaining cycle?
• Should the length of a lockout mandate, once obtained by employers’ organizations, be extended or remain valid until a new collective agreement is reached?

5. First Collective Agreements

During the initial consultation period, some unions highlighted challenges with negotiating first collective agreements, including delays, impasses and difficulties in establishing effective relationships. They raised that the first collective agreement sets the tone for future negotiation between parties and as such, sets the tone for labour relations.

The Government is seeking stakeholder feedback on what additional measures, if any, are needed to support parties in reaching first collective agreements.

Questions

• To what extent would mandatory early involvement of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) improve the timeliness and quality of first collective agreement negotiations, and under what conditions would this intervention be most effective? Please provide examples from your experience.
• What additional tools or mechanisms—beyond mediation (e.g., relationship building supports)—would most effectively help parties overcome impasses and establish constructive labour‑management relationships in first agreement negotiations?

6. Medical leave with pay

Since December 2022, employees in the federally regulated private sector who complete an initial 30-day qualifying period of continuous employment with their employer are entitled to three days of medical leave with pay. Employees are then entitled to an additional day of medical leave with pay at the beginning of each month after completing one month of continuous employment with their employer, up to a maximum of 10 days per year. An employee may take this leave[1] for the following reasons : 

• personal illness or injury;
• organ or tissue donation from the employee;
• medical appointments for the employee during working hours; and,
• quarantine.

An employer may require a medical certificate from an employee who takes five or more consecutive days of medical leave. An employer may request a medical certificate no later than 15 days after the employee’s return from leave.

The Code and Canada Labour Standards Regulations allow some flexibility when defining a year for the purposes of medical leave with pay entitlement. An employer may use the calendar year for this purpose or may choose to establish an alternate year period that it uses for calculating annual vacation entitlement.

Employers have raised concerns with the current policy, citing issues with “stacking” of benefits from other similar leave regimes, and seeking clarity on the “greater right or benefit” provision of the Code.

Unions and worker advocacy groups generally support maintaining the current medical leave with pay entitlements given their benefits for both unionized and non-unionized workers and the fact that many bargaining agreements have been
adjusted to take into account this leave.

Questions

• Should employers have greater flexibility to request a medical certificate from employees who take paid medical leave? If so, under what conditions?
• Instead of a medical certificate, should employers be allowed to request that an employee provide a signed attestation that they qualified for medical leave? Why or why not?
• Subsection 168(1.1) of the Code currently provides that certain divisions under Part III (Minimum Wage and Age of Employment, Annual Vacations, General Holidays, and Bereavement Leave) do not apply to employees represented by a union, if the collective agreement provides rights and benefits at least as favourable as those provided in those divisions. Do you believe that medical leave provisions should be treated in the same manner?
• Should employers be provided with additional flexibility to designate an alternative 12-month period, other than a calendar or vacation year, for the purpose of calculating paid medical leave entitlements? If so, should this be subject to the agreement of any union representing affected employees?

7. Wage theft and enforcement

Wage theft refers to actions taken by an employer resulting in unpaid wages and entitlements legally owed to an employee. During the first round of consultations, stakeholders discussed misclassification as a specific form of wage theft. Wage theft is the most common contravention under Part III of the Code and includes, but is not limited to, misclassification in trucking, unpaid overtime, holiday pay and other employee entitlements, as well as illegal deductions, also constitute wage theft.

The government is seeking stakeholder feedback on the prevalence of other forms of wage theft in all federally regulated sectors.

Questions

• In the first round of consultations, stakeholders cited misclassification as a key form of wage theft in the trucking industry. What other forms of wage theft do you see most often, and why do they persist?
• Who in your sector is most vulnerable to wage theft, and what factors make them particularly at risk?
• What specific changes to the Labour Program’s enforcement powers would most effectively reduce wage theft? For example, do you think that fines and penalties should be more severe, or that repeat offenders should have their business licenses revoked? Should they face prosecution?

8. 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?
• 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 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.

I understand that by providing a submission to ESDC as part of this process, I am 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