Canadians elected a government that promised to defend the country from Trump and his politics. Now corporations are demanding limits on workers’ rights — and Carney is expected to deliver
Christo Aivalis
In 2025, a majority of Canadians chose Mark Carney’s Liberal Party, hoping for leadership that would shield Canadian principles from the influence of Donald Trump. Many deliberately opposed Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, seeing their right-leaning, anti-labor stance as closely mirroring the U.S. Republican Party.
However, those expectations might now seem misplaced, as Carney not only continues Justin Trudeau’s controversial labor policies but also intensifies efforts to undermine workers’ rights. This offensive is disguised under neutral terms like “modernization,” clearly aiming to satisfy capitalist interests by shrinking the protections Canadian workers once had.
This is not speculation; the duplicity is evident from statements by leading officials in Carney’s cabinet. Patty Hajdu, Minister of Jobs and Families—remarkably, Carney avoids appointing a true Minister of Labour—appeared on CBC to justify the government’s assault on strike rights. Hajdu confusingly claimed that Carney supports the right to strike, but the new laws aim to restrict action in the minority of cases, about five percent, where strikes cause disruption. The catch, which Hajdu openly acknowledges, is that collective bargaining generally works because strikes are rare. So the “right” she defends is conditional on workers not using it in the situations where they currently do—in effect, a right that exists only if it’s not exercised.
Furthermore, as reported by CTV, Carney plans to surpass both Trudeau and Stephen Harper by not only employing back-to-work legislation but also introducing new laws to enforce binding mediation before any strike action can occur. This represents a significant intensification of anti-labor measures, even by Carney’s already conservative standards. According to CTV:
Industry’s message to the government was that its traditional tool to use for binding arbitration, Section 107 of the Canadian Labour Code, can only be applied too late in the labour dispute process and from its perspective, does not adequately prevent the damage caused from a work stoppage.
In simpler terms, businesses argue that government powers to curb labor disputes come too late to prevent harm, insisting that strikes be stopped before they even begin to protect investor interests. This fundamentally undermines the purpose of striking: though infrequent, strikes must disrupt to secure important economic gains for union members and the broader workforce. Avi Lewis and the NDP have strongly opposed Carney’s anti-union proposals, emphasizing this point. If Carney and his capitalist supporters demand that strikes only occur without causing any economic impact, they are effectively seeking to eliminate the right to strike altogether.
Minister of Transport Steven MacKinnon echoed this investor-friendly stance during an interview with Rosemary Barton, reiterating Hajdu’s position that while strike rights remain, workers should refrain from exercising them: “It harms investment, harms employment, maybe even particularly in unionized environments. So we need a better framework for getting to agreements between employers and their employees.”
The heart of Carney’s argument insists that protecting workers is detrimental to business. If companies fear unions might strike to demand better pay, conditions, and fair treatment, their profits could suffer, reducing investment incentives. Therefore, to appeal to Trump-affiliated American capitalists Canadians sought protection from, Carney must suppress workers, including their constitutionally guaranteed right to withhold labor.
Although Carney claims opposition to Trump, his vision for Canada aligns more with a Republican-style anti-union agenda typical of conservative southern U.S. states. The leader chosen to defend Canada is instead dismantling it from within for the benefit of capitalists, including American business interests who supported Trump. After Carney completes the sale of Canadian rights and infrastructure with the assistance of American firms like Morgan Stanley, he may be content—but Canadians will inherit the long-term consequences of a Trump-influenced Canada.
Original article: ricochet.media
About the Author
