Bill C-39 seeks to give Canada labour minister explicit authority under Section 107
Experts say the Liberal government is testing the limits of its power to intervene in collective bargaining and to quash strikes
AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made

Bill C-39 seeks to give Canada labour minister explicit authority under Section 107
Photograph: Narcity (embedded from source)
What this story says
- Bill C-39 would amend Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to give the labour minister explicit authority.
- Labour experts say the Liberal government is testing the limits of its power to intervene in collective bargaining.
- The proposed bill is described as a test of Ottawa's power to quash strikes.
- All twelve outlets reported the story via digests; no right‑rated outlet ran it.
Who covered it
Percentages are shares of the 20 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. 1 of the 21 outlets we know ran this story carry no rating and are not counted in them. Coverage measured .
Trust
35/100
Craft
16/100
Hype
45/100
21 sources · methodology
Thin on the right so far
None of the 20 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated right.
This story is still being watched, so it is a count and not yet a finding. Coverage keeps arriving for hours after an event, and a side that has published nothing this morning may publish by tonight. If it is still true when we stop checking, we will say so plainly.
The Liberal government has introduced Bill C-39, which proposes changing the language of Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. The amendment would give the labour minister explicit authority to intervene in collective bargaining situations.
Labour experts say the bill will test the limits of Ottawa's power to quash strikes. They describe the proposal as a test of the government's ability to intervene in disputes between employers and unions.
Omissions
None of the right‑rated digests mention the labour code story.
Still developing. We have re-checked which outlets are covering this 7 times, most recently on 25 Sept 2026, 10:30, and will add the sides that appear.
How each side covered it
Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.
Left
13 rated outlets
- The seven left‑rated digests all led on the fact that the bill will test the limits of Ottawa's power to quash strikes. Each noted that labour experts said the Liberal government is testing the limits of its powers to intervene in collective bargaining. They also mentioned the amendment to Section 107 that would give the labour minister explicit authority.
Centre
7 rated outlets
- The five centre‑rated digests similarly highlighted the amendment to Section 107 and the experts' comment that the government is testing its power to intervene in bargaining. They also reported that the bill will test the limits of Ottawa's ability to quash strikes.
Right
0 rated outlets
No outlet rated right has run this story so far. We are still checking, and will say plainly if that does not change.
Questions about this coverage
- How did the left and right cover Bill C-39 seeks to give Canada labour minister explicit authority under…?
- Of the 20 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 65% are rated left, 35% are rated centre, 0% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 21. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
- Is Bill C-39 seeks to give Canada labour minister explicit authority under… left or right?
- Neither side dominates it. Of the 20 rated outlets on this story, 65% are rated left, 35% are rated centre, 0% are rated right, and no side holds the 70% this site would want before calling a field one-sided. A story is not left or right in any case; the outlets that carried it are what carry ratings.
- Is the coverage of Bill C-39 seeks to give Canada labour minister explicit authority under… biased?
- Bill C-39 seeks to give Canada labour minister explicit authority under Section 107 is one event reported by 21 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
- Which side is not reporting Bill C-39 seeks to give Canada labour minister explicit authority under…?
- When we first saw this story, outlets rated right had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
- Which outlets covered Bill C-39 seeks to give Canada labour minister explicit authority under…?
- 21 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
- What does Bill C-39 propose?
- Bill C-39 proposes amending Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to give the labour minister explicit authority to intervene in collective bargaining, according to the reports from all twelve outlets.
- Who says the government is testing its powers?
- Labour experts are quoted in the digests as saying the Liberal government is testing the limits of its powers to intervene in collective bargaining and to quash strikes.
- What power would the amendment test?
- The amendment would test Ottawa's power to quash strikes, as described by the experts cited in the reports.
- Did any right‑leaning outlet cover the story?
- No right‑rated outlet ran the story; none of the right‑rated digests mention the labour code proposal.
Read it at the source
21 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.
Left
13- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens Timmins Today in a new tab)
Timmins Today — is Timmins Today biased? Our profile of this outlet
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens Sudbury in a new tab)
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens Thorold Today in a new tab)
Thorold Today — is Thorold Today biased? Our profile of this outlet
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens Collingwood Today in a new tab)
Collingwood Today — is Collingwood Today biased? Our profile of this outlet
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens Orillia Matters in a new tab)
Orillia Matters — is Orillia Matters biased? Our profile of this outlet
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens Rocky Mountain Outlook in a new tab)
Rocky Mountain Outlook — is Rocky Mountain Outlook biased? Our profile of this outlet
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens The Lethbridge Herald in a new tab)
The Lethbridge Herald — is The Lethbridge Herald biased? Our profile of this outlet
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens Guelph Today in a new tab)
Guelph Today — is Guelph Today biased? Our profile of this outlet
Show 5 more
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens Bay Today in a new tab)
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens SooToday.com in a new tab)
SooToday.com — is SooToday.com biased? Our profile of this outlet
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens NiagaraFallsReview.ca in a new tab)
NiagaraFallsReview.ca — is NiagaraFallsReview.ca biased? Our profile of this outlet
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens The Record in a new tab)
The Record — is The Record biased? Our profile of this outlet
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens The Hamilton Spectator in a new tab)
The Hamilton Spectator — is The Hamilton Spectator biased? Our profile of this outlet
Centre
7- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens Narcity in a new tab)
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens meadowlakeNOW in a new tab)
meadowlakeNOW — is meadowlakeNOW biased? Our profile of this outlet
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens Battlefords NOW in a new tab)
Battlefords NOW — is Battlefords NOW biased? Our profile of this outlet
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens Ckpg Today in a new tab)
Ckpg Today — is Ckpg Today biased? Our profile of this outlet
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens Medicine Hat News in a new tab)
Medicine Hat News — is Medicine Hat News biased? Our profile of this outlet
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens CFJC Today Kamloops in a new tab)
CFJC Today Kamloops — is CFJC Today Kamloops biased? Our profile of this outlet
- In the news today: labour code changes, ex-envoy on U.S. trade, MapQuest bucks Trump (opens Winnipeg Free Press in a new tab)
Winnipeg Free Press — is Winnipeg Free Press biased? Our profile of this outlet
Right
0No outlet in this group ran the story.
Not rated
1How did this read?
About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.



