An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code
Overall, the bill removes an important tool for rapid resolution of industrial disputes, increasing the risk of supply-chain shocks that undermine prosperity, productivity, and exports. While curbing ministerial discretion can reduce politicization, the absence of replacement safeguards threatens economic resilience and the safety and security of Canadians that Builders prioritize.
How will the government prevent prolonged disruptions in ports, rail, and aviation when it can no longer refer urgent questions to the CIRB or direct time-sensitive action under section 107?
What GDP, export, and inflation modelling has the department completed on the repeal of section 107, and will the minister table that analysis before the House votes?
Will the minister amend the bill to retain a narrowly scoped, time-limited emergency power to protect public safety and critical infrastructure, with clear triggers, expedited timelines, and transparent reporting?
Removing a tool for rapid settlement of major industrial disputes risks longer work stoppages and broader economic losses.
Curtails discretionary ministerial interference, reducing executive overreach; however, benefits depend on CIRB’s ability to act swiftly without added delay.
Limits rapid government response to critical sector disputes, increasing risk of supply-chain disruptions that depress productivity and competitiveness.
Prolonged port, rail, and air disputes could impede exports, harming Canada’s trade performance.
Greater uncertainty around dispute resolution can deter investment and delay projects in federally regulated, trade-dependent sectors.
Reduces ministerial workload but may raise downstream costs from longer disruptions; net efficiency impact is unclear.
No tax provisions are affected.
A narrow administrative repeal with potential economy-wide downsides; it does not advance a large-scale growth agenda.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email [email protected]