Debates of Oct. 7th, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague say that we cannot keep doing things the way we always have and that the goal is to improve the Canadian economy. My question is this. Why did it take the Liberal government over 10 years to realize that we cannot keep doing things the way we always have?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we introduced the bill after our new government took office. I am a new member, elected in 2025. We have been taking action and launching strategies since we first took office, and now we are implementing those measures. We have already submitted 167 projects at the Canada investment summit that took place in Toronto three weeks ago and that helped attract roughly 500 billion dollars' worth of investment to Canada.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Trois‑Rivières. She said a lot of things in her speech, but we will try to keep it simple. How does fast-tracking projects make them better projects?

She says that there is no environmental risk and that there will be assessments. Imagine that it takes a year and a half to assess a project, but the bill says that is too long and it must be done within a year.

I would like my colleague to simply explain to the people of Trois‑Rivières and Quebec how it is that any project that needs more than a year is not a good project.

Under the bill, all projects must be approved within a year, at most, based on the minister's decision, obviously, whether or not he takes into account the assessments that have been done.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, but I am a little disappointed that he oversimplified some things in his question.

I think it is clear that the fact that a project takes more than a year to be assessed does not make it a bad project. The assessment standards remain the same. The process remains as rigorous. The processes will take place simultaneously. The decision-making process will be coordinated to expedite the project.

The degree of rigour is not changing. The standards are not changing. The same standards apply. The timelines are there so people know whether or not a project can move forward. Investors need that predictability.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague. I have actually been to her riding, and I would like to congratulate the people of Trois‑Rivières because they are so fortunate to have her as their member of Parliament.

My question is very simple. What role can the Port of Trois-Rivières play in attracting more investment and supporting job creation and our SMEs?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I have been to his riding as well. We had some great visits.

In fact, 50% of transshipments at the port of Trois-Rivières consist of critical minerals. There are investments that will speed up the process.

Canada's commitments to accelerate the development of critical minerals and mines in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, and the use of a rail network connecting to the port of Trois-Rivières, will really allow the region to play its role to the full, whether in terms of shipping critical minerals to European markets or, once again, shipping domestically in Canada to meet processing needs.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has made great fanfare of announcements and more announcements. With the future implementation of the legislation, I wonder how the Liberals propose to measure results. What happens when they repeatedly do not deliver?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all the announcements we have made are very concrete. For example, at the Contrecoeur port, the work has already started. The work will start at Churchill Falls. With all the announcements we have made, those projects have already started, so I am not really sure what my colleague is referring to.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on behalf of the people of Windsor West. I want to start by saying something fairly simple. I am encouraged by the direction of the bill. The government is finally acknowledging something Conservatives have been saying for years: Canada has too much red tape, building takes too long, there is too much duplication, there are too many government departments involved and investors certainly do not like uncertainty. If the bill generally makes it easier to build in Canada and if it saves Canadians money, protects Canadian jobs and gets investment moving, I will support those measures.

However, there is another principle I learned during my three decades of a policing career: Trust but verify. I wrote tickets for people not because I only thought they had broken the law. I checked. I looked at the evidence. I verified the facts. That is how I intend to approach Bill C-39. I am not going to oppose something just because the Liberal government has introduced it, but I am also not going to take the government's word for it. Show me the results.

There is something about the bill that should be pointed out. This is not exactly a new idea. In fact, much of what we are hearing today sounds pretty familiar. The Harper government understood that Canada had a problem with duplication and delays. It moved toward one project, one review. It introduced timelines. It reduced the number of federal organizations involved in major project reviews. The basic idea was pretty simple: Get the right people around the table, do the work, make a decision and get on with it.

That is not revolutionary. That is common sense. I think Canadians would understand that. What is different today is how big the problem has become. Over the years, governments have added regulations, agencies, assessments, consultations, forms and processes. One layer gets put on top of another, and eventually we get to the point where the process becomes the problem.

The government now comes forward and says it is going to coordinate all of this. It is going to establish timelines. It is going to make it easier to build. That is good. I am encouraged. However, I have a couple of questions. Why did it take so long? More importantly, will it actually work? There is a difference between making the bureaucracy easier to navigate and actually removing the bureaucracy. We can put better signs in a maze, and we can open an office to help people get through the maze, but at the end of the day, we still have a maze. That is where I have some concerns with Bill C-39.

If we are serious about cutting red tape, then let us cut red tape. Bill C-39 would not repeal Bill C-69. It would not repeal Bill C-48. It would not remove every regulatory barrier that businesses and investors have been telling us for years is making it harder to build in this country. My question is pretty straightforward: Would we actually be removing obstacles, or would we simply be creating a better system for navigating them? Those are two different things, and Canadians deserve to know the answer.

Let us talk about the one-year promise. One year sounds pretty good. Every Canadian understands “one year”. Here is the question I keep coming back to: one year from when? That is the important part. Would the clock start when a Canadian company says it wants to build, or would it start after the company has completed the studies, provided the information and satisfied all the requirements necessary to get the application moving?

If I tell somebody that I will get back to them within a year, they reasonably expect that year to start when I tell them that. They do not expect me to say that the clock does not actually start until I have finished asking them questions. That is the concern. If someone is investing a billion dollars, they need to know when the clock starts. They need to know who is responsible. They need to know what happens when the deadline is missed. They need to know whether that one-year promise is actually a deadline or simply an aspiration. They do not want a one-year headline. They want a one-year deadline that means something.

We heard a similar promise when Bill C-5 came forward. We were told that Canada was going to move at speeds not seen in generations. Eighteen months later, we are back here with another major piece of legislation. Some people are calling it the big beautiful bill from Canada again, telling Canadians that this time, things will be different. That is fair enough. Let us check. How many projects have actually moved? How many permits have actually been issued through the new major projects bureaucracy? What has actually been built?

An announcement is not a project. A designation is not a project. A memorandum is not a project. A project is when the shovel goes in the ground. It is when the crane goes up. It is when the factory starts running. It is when a Canadian worker gets a paycheque. That is what I am interested in.

I come from Windsor, and we understand this pretty well. We are an industrial city. We have manufacturers and skilled trades. We have tool and die companies. We have automotive suppliers that are tied into supply chains running across Canada, across the bridge and throughout North America. When a decision gets delayed in Ottawa, the consequences do not stay in Ottawa. They show up on the shop floor. They show up in the lunchroom. They show up at the kitchen table. For government, six months can be a line on a calendar. For a small manufacturer, six months can mean six months without an order. For a worker, it can mean six months without a job. For an investor, it can mean taking an investment somewhere else. This is why speed matters, but certainty matters just as much.

I also want to make something clear. Cutting red tape does not mean throwing out every rule. Canadians expect us to protect the environment. They expect projects to be safe. They expect indigenous rights to be respected. They expect taxpayers' money to be protected. This is reasonable. The question is not whether we have rules. The question is whether we have the right rules: rules that protect what actually needs protecting, rules that do not duplicate each other, rules that have an end point and rules that allow a responsible project to actually get built. That is what good government should do.

There is one part of this bill where I think we need to slow down, and that is part 3, the labour provisions. Workers are not the problem. Workers are people who build Canada. They operate the cranes. They weld the steel. They drive the trucks. They run the machines. They build the roads. They keep our factories running. Most importantly, they are taxpayers, so we have to get this part right. The government says these provisions deal with exceptional circumstances and the national interest. Well, maybe that is true, but whenever Parliament gives government additional powers to intervene in labour disputes, we need to understand exactly what those powers mean.

We have already heard these concerns. CUPE has been very clear. On September 23, its national executive board unanimously resolved that it would defy Bill C-39 if it passed unamended, arguing that the bill would limit the constitutionally protected right to strike. CUPE's national secretary-treasurer, Candace Rennick, said, “Governments cannot legislate labour peace.” Those are CUPE's words.

I am not going to stand here and tell the House that CUPE has settled the constitutional question, because it has not, but I am not going to ignore its concern either. We should hear from the unions. We should hear from employers. We should hear from constitutional experts. We should hear from the people who actually work under the Canada Labour Code. What threshold has to be met? When can the minister intervene? What safeguards are there? How do we make sure that exceptional powers stay exceptional? These are fair questions. That is why we are continuing to review part 3. Canadians expect us to read this bill. They expect us to understand it. They expect us to ask questions. That is what we are here to do.

Yes, I am encouraged by the direction of this bill. I am encouraged that the government finally recognizes that Canada has to build. I am encouraged that we are talking about reducing red tape, but I am not going to confuse a good signal with a proven result. My test is pretty simple. Does it save Canadians money and save Canadian jobs? Does it bring investment back? Does it actually remove red tape? Does it make government more accountable? Does it get projects built? If the answer is yes, I will support it, but I will not support it because somebody tells me to trust them. I will support it because we have done the work, we have read the bill, we have heard from Canadians and we have heard from workers.

Canada has everything we need. We have the resources, entrepreneurs, skilled trades and manufacturers. We just need to get out of our own way, and the government should start doing that sooner rather than later. It is about time we start doing what we promised Canadians we would do for them, not just show up and gum up the works as the Liberals have done for the past 11 years.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague's speech very interesting and encouraging when it comes to Bill C‑39. I think he agrees with the spirit of Bill C‑39, which is to fast-track projects.

He also wondered about the time limits. The bill is long—over 250 pages—but the information on time limits and analyses is there.

From his speech, I understand that he wants to fast-track things and make them work. He wants us to work together with the unions to make projects move forward and avoid additional delays.

I would like to know one thing: Will he vote in favour of the bill so that we can move forward and fast-track construction?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we heard these promises with Bill C-5. If I were a policeman and saw the Liberal bus in front of me going at the speed the Liberals are moving rather than the speed they claimed it would move at, I would pull it over and give them a ticket for impeding traffic. The Liberals have not moved at the speeds they promised us. That is the challenge.

If the Liberals amend the things that need to be amended and there is a one-year timeline or deadline, yes, we will support it, provided they also have the provisions that labour needs in order to ensure they have the right to strike when they need to. It is not something workers want to do willy-nilly. They do not want to go into a work stoppage because they feel like somebody looked at them wrong. It is their last option to gain leverage to do what they need to do.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for reminding us of the importance of consulting the union movement. I am pleased to hear him talk about the right to strike and workers' rights. We in the Bloc Québécois were the first to raise the red flag. My colleague is right.

Just yesterday, I met with people from the steelworkers union. Every day we receive comments, emails and requests for meetings from union groups that are extremely concerned about this bill. Contrary to the government's claims that it continues to stand up for workers' rights, every day I receive emails and calls from unions that dispute the government's claims. Yes, it is absolutely essential to consult unions, and no, this bill does not respect the right to strike and workers' rights.

I would like to hear my colleague speak more on the importance of consulting these folks who work every day.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I received an email from an OSSTF district, from Ms. Erin Roy, who is the president of the union. She expressed serious concerns regarding the Canada Labour Code provisions that are introduced in Bill C-39. She wrote that workers and families are facing real challenges in their daily lives because of the high cost of living, and their right to strike remains as the last leverage that provides them the ability to negotiate fair wages, safe work conditions, secure employment and meaningful solutions for workplace concerns.

I totally agree. This is the challenge that our friends across the aisle perhaps do not get: These workers are also taxpayers. We need to show them the respect they deserve and recognize the hard-earned dollars they contribute to the government, as well as what they do for all of us.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking at Bill C-5 and what it has produced. ChatGPT, which we have heard an awful lot of in the House lately, had this to say: It has produced some concrete regulatory changes in projects, but ChatGPT could not establish that it completed a major project. Then I looked up the Pacific oil pipeline, and it had this to say: The pipeline has not been built, and its final conditions remain outstanding. LNG Canada phase two does not establish that the expansion is completed. The Coastal GasLink construction is scheduled to begin next year, and the federal trade mobility—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I need to interrupt the member to give the member for Windsor West a chance to respond.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the challenge we have. If we want people's trust, we have to act and deliver on promises. Simply making promises is like someone's son telling them they are going to get an A, promising that and then never studying to get that A. We have to see the result at the end of the day, and there are no results that we can see from that side of the aisle.

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. There is much to discuss. This bill has been subject to a wild disinformation campaign, some of which has been perpetrated by members of this House. Therefore, I want to begin today by saying something that should not be controversial in this place. Members of Parliament are allowed to disagree. We can oppose and even criticize legislation. We can believe that government has gotten something wrong. That is democracy and that is our job. However, there is a difference between opposing legislation and telling Canadians that legislation says something it does not say. Unfortunately, we have heard quite a bit of the latter when it comes to Bill C-39. We have heard claims that this bill would eliminate environmental assessments. It would not. We have heard that it would eliminate indigenous consultation. It would not. We have heard that it would eliminate workers' right to strike. It would not do that either.

With the rise of social media and short-form content, Canadians are less likely to get the full story. Complex legislation cannot be reduced to a viral slogan or a social media post, yet in an era when many Canadians get their news online, we have a responsibility to ensure that what we share is rooted in facts and not in fear. Therefore, let us separate the facts from the fiction when it comes to Bill C-39, and let us start with the environment.

I have spent my entire career fighting for the environment, and I would never support something that would weaken environmental protections. The building Canada strong act would make no changes to the federal environmental standards. This would be a change in process. Regardless of what kind of project is reviewed, all factors would need to be taken into consideration, including climate impacts, species at risk, ecological and nature implications, navigation, navigable waters and much more. Bill C-39 does not say to forget the environment and build whatever someone wants. Nothing in the 244 pages of this piece of legislation says that we would bulldoze nature, yet those are the things that are being said outside of this House and in this House.

When multiple government agencies are asking the same questions, running the same assessments and coming to the same conclusion, there is a serious opportunity to streamline processes. We can do that by changing who is leading these assessments and how departments coordinate their decisions.

The projects moving through these new processes would still undergo rigorous assessment. This would not suddenly allow more environmentally sensitive projects to come to fruition. What it would do is make approvals happen faster, reduce the strain on the federal bureaucracy and speed up the economic benefits of major projects. If members opposite believe the bill would not provide adequate environmental protection, then they can make that argument and tell Canadians which standard they think would be inadequate and which safeguards they want strengthened. They can put forward an amendment and present a true alternative. That is what Parliament is for. However, standing in the House and telling Canadians that Bill C-39 would simply abolish environmental assessments is not a policy argument and it is not rooted in fact.

Long regulatory processes have a cost. It costs the government when federal employees are tasked with duplicate efforts. It costs communities that are waiting to see investment come to fruition. It costs workers who are awaiting new opportunities. It comes at a cost to Canada's economic prosperity, which is something we have to be very focused on at this time.

My question to those who oppose this bill is as follows: Why should a federal regulatory process take longer than necessary once all of the information is on the table? I am open to hearing feedback on this topic from my colleagues across the aisle, from my constituents and from Canadians at large, but when this feedback is rooted in disinformation rather than fact, it is the duty of all members of this House to correct the record.

Another section of this bill that has seen significant controversy relates to workers' rights. I took time to study these provisions carefully and meet with my constituents and stakeholders who raised concerns, because it is my responsibility to understand the legislation before us and to provide clear information to Canadians. As I stand here and debate this bill, I want to make it clear that I am not dismissing concerns about the legislation in front of us. My job is to seek clarity on these concerns and bring this information back to my constituents.

What I have been seeing online is that Bill C-39 would eliminate a worker's right to strike, but this could not be further from the truth. For years, there have been concerns about the use of section 107. Right now, the minister can use it where the minister deems it expedient. Bill C-39 would put clear limits on that power. A prescribed process must occur, and intervention must be tied to a strike or lockout that could have a significant adverse national impact. While we are seeing social media posts saying that this government would be eliminating workers' rights, the reality is that Bill C-39 would put clear guardrails around ministerial intervention. That is why, when I hear the member for Edmonton Strathcona say that this legislation would give the minister extraordinary new powers to intervene in a legal strike, I take issue with that characterization, because this bill would do the opposite.

As we continue to discuss the implications of this new legislation, I invite all members of the House to ensure that we are telling the whole story. Bill C-39 is a transformative piece of legislation that would keep Canada moving. It would unlock economic growth by reducing red tape and providing regulatory certainty, accelerating significant national infrastructure development while improving the labour relations framework and strengthening supply chain efficiency.

We are facing an uncertain world, and Canada needs to build greater economic resilience at home while diversifying our trade relationships abroad. U.S. tariffs have only heightened the urgency of addressing the structural barriers to investment, productivity and trade that are limiting our country's prosperity. This work can be done, and it can be done safely. Through Bill C-39, we can get back into the business of building big things while maintaining strong environmental, social and labour protections, because this bill would not remove protections, but it would remove duplication.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague. Her notes were very well prepared, but I wonder if she is aware that division 3 of this bill will dramatically accelerate pipeline construction.

I would like to know if she is aware that 91% of our oil exports go directly to the United States. We are told it is in the public interest to build pipelines, but that only serves the interests of Americans and their energy security. We know that 60% of major oil companies are American-owned, so I find it quite surprising that we are scrapping our environmental laws to serve American interests in the context of a trade war. I wonder if my colleague is aware of that.

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my hon. colleague's framing. The pipeline, the Pacific link, is a major project. It is designated as a major project, but its purpose is not to serve the United States. It is to diversify our trade relationships internationally and to reduce our reliance on the United States of America. That has been made very clear, and it is something that we absolutely must do to build our economic resilience and provide what we can offer to the world, which is low-carbon fuel, at this time of transition to a clean economy. Bill C-39 has pieces in place that would ensure environmental assessment is rigorous in that process.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking up things that had to do with Bill C-5, and I am wondering if there is any change here. Things that were built in 18 months are the Space Needle in 1962, the Empire State Building in 1930, the Pentagon in 1941, the Alaska Highway and the Crystal Palace in 1851. I am wondering if my colleague can tell me what has been built in the 18 months since Bill C-5 was passed.

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting history lesson. I appreciate that. We are laying the foundation for transformation in this country. We have shovels in the ground across this country, which has been said in question period all of this week, on major projects, and more are to come. It does take a bit of time to get it all in place, but I think we are proving that we are acting on our commitments in good faith in trying to urgently transform our economy to address the crisis with the United States.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her extraordinary work on the Liberal environment caucus. I urge her not to give up. Interestingly, when I was in Halifax, I saw that bus systems are now being electrified.

How can our government help our SMEs invest in cleaner technologies while boosting competitiveness, creating jobs and strengthening environmental protection?

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is the work I did for a very long time in my past life. I am very excited about our new national electricity strategy. This is going to unlock our ability to double our electricity capacity while cleaning our grid and adhering to our climate targets. Electric buses are one piece. Electrifying our building energy systems is another and fuelling our economy at large. I think that a lot of good work has already been done across this country by local governments, provinces and territories, and this federal government. We are going to keep on working towards that objective.

We just had Energy Efficiency Day nationally. Colleagues may not know that. Today, we had experts from across every sector here on the Hill, from the steel industry to the wind industry, buildings, efficiency and clean fuels. Everyone is pulling in the same direction to drive this clean economy of the future. I am really excited about it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-39. To begin, I want to point out to Canadians that the Liberal government has once again introduced an omnibus bill of some 246 pages that inappropriately combines measures that do not belong in the same legislation. This ploy is an attempt to blur issues and blunt criticism. It disrespects Parliament and the voters who send us here to properly scrutinize bills and hold government accountable. It directly contradicts previous promises by Liberals not to use this odious practice inappropriately. Unfortunately, this is not surprising. Liberals are infamous for saying one thing at election time and doing the opposite once elected.

As labour critic for the New Democratic Party, I will focus on the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code contained in part 3 of this bill. Let there be no doubt that this bill contains one of the most serious attacks on workers' rights in a generation: the entrenchment of the harmful misuse of section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. These changes would expand the federal government's unilateral authority to terminate a legal strike in a manner more broadly than exists in any G7 country, including Donald Trump's United States.

At its core, this bill would prevent Canadian workers from meaningfully exercising their constitutionally protected freedoms of association and expression. It would restrict their charter right to withdraw their services. It would fundamentally alter the balance of power in collective bargaining in Canada, and the way it would do so is deeply troubling to anyone who supports transparency and accountability. Once again, it reveals a disturbing trend by the Liberal government of concentrating power in the hands of cabinet ministers to avoid being responsible to Parliament. That is the approach of authoritarian rulers, not democratic ones.

Let me start by pointing out that ending lawful strikes was never the purpose of section 107. Since its inclusion in the code in 1984, this provision was always understood as an exceptional administrative power, not a weapon to violate workers' rights. In fact, there have been previous attempts to stretch that authority in the past, including by the Harper government in 2011. Former Conservative labour minister Lisa Raitt has publicly stated that Conservatives contemplated the use of section 107 to end strikes, but decided against it based on legal advice that this was not a proper use of that provision. However, the Liberal government has ignored that history and taken the use of section 107 to an unprecedented extreme.

In the last three years alone, Liberals have used section 107 10 times to intervene in labour disputes, most recently involving rail workers, port workers, postal workers and airline workers. In many cases, Liberals used this section to break strikes just hours after they began. Why is this objectionable? It is because the freedoms of association and expression have been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada to include the rights of workers to bargain collectively and withdraw their services in concert to advance their interests, so using the law in this way violates workers' constitutional rights. Because corporate management has disproportionate power in the workplace with unilateral rights to manage and vastly superior financial resources, workers' only way to counterbalance these is through withdrawing their services. Interfering with this strips workers of the only real power they have because this legislation undermines the collective bargaining process.

If employers know that government will intervene on their behalf to end a strike, they have reduced incentive to bargain seriously and come to an agreement themselves. Members should not take my word for it. Employers like Air Canada have publicly admitted this. It is unnecessary. The federal government and employers already have the tools they need to protect the health and safety of the public or intervene if the Canadian economy is truly imperilled by a protracted labour dispute. Governments always have the power to bring in back-to-work legislation where the issues can be fully debated in public in this chamber and elected representatives are held accountable to their voters by voting in their seats. This has been done numerous times when the national interest requires it.

Every labour code in the country, including the Canada Labour Code, has essential services provisions that allow any employer to make a case before an impartial adjudicator that a strike ought to be limited to preserve the health and safety of Canadians. These are routinely used in the cases of bargaining units like those of nurses, police officers and longshore workers.

Now, in this legislation, the Liberals want the ability to violate workers' rights even more easily. Far from containing any guardrails or government right to break strikes, this is a road map for how to do it. Bill C-39 would codify the minister's unilateral power to end a legal strike and would make the minister's own opinion the sole test for exercising that power. It would require the minister only to consider the report of a special mediator. This is someone, by the way, whom they appoint and whose recommendations they are entirely free to disregard.

It states that the minister may consider any relevant issue they wish, with no benchmarks or limits expressed in the legislation. It would require the minister only to consider the impact of their decision on freedom of association, merely making them think about workers' rights before violating them. In other words, federal workers can have their rights to take job action taken away by the sole opinion of a single cabinet minister for any reason they find convenient.

The legislation is also counterproductive, and I believe it would harm the public's interest. Undermining the right to strike is more likely to fuel conflict than prevent it. When workers are denied a legal means to withdraw their labour, disputes do not disappear; they risk becoming more confrontational and difficult to resolve. The history of labour relations and market economies makes this clear. When workers' rights were suppressed, strikes did not disappear: They were frequent, protracted and often violent, and they tore communities apart.

The facts prove that the legislation is not even necessary. The truth is that the current system of counterbalanced collective bargaining in this country works. About 95% of all collective agreements in Canada are successfully negotiated at the bargaining table by the parties themselves, with no job action. Canada is on track this year to have the fewest days lost to strikes in the federal sector since 1954. This is why unions across the country have warned against these provisions: They understand that Bill C-39 would fundamentally change the balance of power in labour relations and harm the Canadian economy by fuelling uncertainty and instability.

Bea Bruske, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, has been clear: Unions across this country are united. From coast to coast, across every sector, they are delivering the same message that unconstitutional restrictions on the right to strike are unacceptable and will be fought.

The right to strike is not a privilege. It is protected by the charter and recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not a right to be respected only when it is ineffective.

Strikes can disrupt. They can cause discomfort. They can cause economic consequences to employers and sometimes sections of the public. However, that is the very point of a strike. It is the most impactful, and frankly the only, way workers can demonstrate the value of their labour in the marketplace. By showing the effect the withdrawal of their labour has on society and on their employer, they make the case that they should be compensated accordingly.

Let us all acknowledge in this place that labour rights have had and do have a very positive impact on Canadian society. Through the struggle and sacrifice of working people for the last 160 years, as well as the many men and women who took job action for fair wages, safer working conditions and a better life for their families, all Canadians have benefited. We all enjoy a standard of living that economies with no labour rights look on with envy.

This debate is ultimately about more than labour law. It is about what kind of country we want to build and whose interests we seek to defend. New Democrats believe that strong countries are built by empowered workers. Strong economies are built through free and fair bargaining. Strong democracies respect constitutional rights.

The legislation is built on the view that workers' rights are an obstacle to nation building. That is wrong. Workers are the people who literally build this nation. New Democrats believe that if we want to build a stronger Canada, we must respect workers' rights, value their voices and raise their standard of living, yet—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.