The biggest risk to Canada’s economy nobody is talking about: major looming labour strikes

Over the next 24 months, collective agreements covering tens of thousands of workers across Canada’s federally regulated transportation network are set to expire. These include major bargaining units at CN and CPKC, the country’s two Class I railways; longshore workers at key marine gateways in Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Montreal, Halifax, and Saint John; and significant employee groups across Canada’s major airlines and airport authorities. Together, these firms move well over $1 billion worth of goods per day by rail and hundreds of millions more through ports that handle roughly one-quarter of Canada’s total traded goods by value. The stakes are big. Consider, for instance, that in 2023, a 13-day strike at British Columbia’s ports halted cargo movement at facilities responsible for approximately $800 million in goods daily. Rail disruptions in recent years have similarly reverberated across agriculture, mining, energy, forestry, and manufacturing supply chains. Even short stoppages generate backlog effects that take weeks to unwind. For export-oriented sectors such as grain, potash, lumber, and autos, delays translate into contractual penalties, lost market share, and reputational damage in highly competitive global markets. Canada’s economy is unusually exposed to these risks. Trade accounts for roughly two-thirds of GDP, and much of it moves through a relatively small number of transportation chokepoints. Unlike the United States, where the Railway Labor Act requires extended mediation and structured cooling-off periods before work stoppages can occur, Canada’s framework under the Canada Labour Code provides fewer built-in guardrails against supply-chain paralysis. Ottawa has repeatedly intervened with back-to-work legislation, but such ad hoc responses create uncertainty for both labour and employers and do little to address the underlying institutional design. The political context complicates matters further. Public opinion has become more sympathetic to organized labour, and parties across the spectrum are increasingly reluctant to be seen as limiting strike rights. Yet the economic consequences of instability are diffuse and often invisible. When rail lines shut down, farmers cannot move grain, miners cannot ship potash, manufacturers lack critical inputs, and retailers face inventory shortages. When ports close, exporters scramble for alternatives while importers confront rising costs and delays. These effects ripple outward far beyond the bargaining table. The issue isn’t whether collective bargaining should continue. The right to strike is foundational in a free economy. But when work stoppages can immobilize national trade corridors that move hundreds of millions of dollars in goods per day, the policy framework governing those disputes cannot be neutral about economic continuity. Canada’s current approach relies too heavily on brinkmanship followed by emergency back-to-work legislation. That model satisfies neither labour nor business. It creates recurring uncertainty, politicizes negotiations, and erodes confidence in Canada as a stable place to invest and trade. It is governance by crisis. Other advanced economies have recognized that transportation infrastructure occupies a special category. In the United States, extended mediation and structured dispute-resolution mechanisms make nationwide rail shutdowns exceedingly rare. The objective isn’t to eliminate bargaining power but to ensure that essential supply chains are not repeatedly placed at risk. Canada should move in the same direction. That means modernizing the Canada Labour Code to require binding arbitration or enhanced third-party dispute resolution when negotiations threaten to paralyze critical transportation corridors. It means shifting from reactive political interventions to predictable institutional rules. And it means acknowledging that in a trade-dependent economy, stability is itself a public good. With major collective agreements expiring over the next two years, policymakers have a narrow window to act before the next disruption tests the system again. The choice is straightforward: continue managing avoidable crises one at a time, or adopt a framework that protects both collective bargaining and the economic interests of millions of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on goods moving reliably. A country that depends on trade cannot afford to treat transportation instability as routine. It’s time to design a system that reflects that reality.