Canada’s labour relations model, grounded in confrontation and conflict, is increasingly damaging our national economy and hurting ordinary Canadians. Strikes and lockouts have become commonplace, yet we persist with an outdated approach that prioritizes adversarial bargaining over collaborative solutions.
It’s high time we rethink this approach.
For too long, Canada has embraced an adversarial labour-relations framework based on the Wagner Act model, imported from the United States in the 1950s. Under this system, unions and management see negotiations as battles to be won rather than as opportunities to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. The consequence of this deeply embedded adversarial stance is that Canadians suffer repeated disruptions to their daily lives, the economy incurs massive losses, and essential services grind to a halt.
Consider recent railway strike threats, which clearly illustrate the economic stakes involved. Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway together transport about $1 billion worth of goods daily. Any disruption to rail services, such as a strike or lockout, costs Canada roughly $341 million per day, equivalent to about four per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP). These disruptions lead to product shortages, increased costs for consumers, lost productivity for businesses, and significant harm to our national competitiveness.
Yet, despite clear evidence of economic damage, political leaders continue to tiptoe around serious reform, reluctant to challenge powerful unions or entrenched interests. Even worse, judicial activism by Canadian courts has broadly interpreted the right to strike, effectively limiting government efforts to swiftly resolve disputes. This further entrenches a confrontational system that undermines the public interest.
Fortunately, there is a better way.
European countries such as Germany and Sweden offer powerful examples of successful, collaborative labour relations systems that minimize strikes and lockouts while ensuring fair negotiations between unions and employers. Sweden, for example, is highly unionized—more so than Canada—but experiences far fewer disruptive labour actions. Swedish unions and employers have institutionalized a cooperative framework where labour negotiations emphasize consensus, dialogue, and the common good. This approach has helped Sweden maintain economic stability and competitiveness, even during global economic uncertainty.
Similarly, Germany’s model of workers’ councils provides a platform for employee and management cooperation, resulting in productive dialogue rather than adversarial brinksmanship. Workers actively participate in company decisions, helping businesses thrive while protecting employee rights and interests. This collaborative approach dramatically reduces the likelihood of prolonged strikes and lockouts.
Canada should learn from these successful international models. Essential services, especially critical infrastructure like railways, should be explicitly designated as essential to limit disruptive actions. Governments at all levels should retain the authority to impose binding arbitration when labour disputes threaten the national interest.
Additionally, governments must curb judicial activism that empowers labour disruptions at the economy’s expense. One available tool is Section 33 of the Charter—the notwithstanding clause—to ensure governments can prioritize public welfare during significant labour disputes without constant judicial interference.
Furthermore, the federal parliament should repeal the ban on replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces. The current prohibition prolongs disputes by removing incentives for timely settlements. Allowing replacement workers would restore balance and motivate both parties toward faster resolutions.
Finally, dismantling public-sector monopolies in health care and education would significantly reduce Canadians’ vulnerability to disruptive strikes. Introducing competition in these critical sectors would not only protect Canadians but also improve efficiency and quality of service delivery.
Reorienting Canada’s labour relations toward cooperation and collaboration would yield numerous benefits. Economic disruptions would become less frequent, labour disputes would be resolved more swiftly, and the public interest would no longer be held hostage by adversarial tactics. Canadians deserve a balanced labour-relations system where unions, employers, and governments share responsibility for preventing economically damaging conflicts.
Canada urgently needs a labour-relations system fit for the 21st century. It’s time we abandon confrontation and embrace a collaborative, consensus-driven model—one that ensures stability, fairness, and prosperity for all Canadians.
