Shannon Miedema

Mr. Speaker, Greeting · 18 wordsI rise today to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. There is much to discuss.Greeting Claims · 21 wordsThis bill has been subject to a wild disinformation campaign, some of which has been perpetrated by members of this House. Procedure · 17 wordsTherefore, I want to begin today by saying something that should not be controversial in this place.Procedure Reasoning · 50 wordsMembers 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.Off point However, there is a difference between opposing legislation and telling Canadians that legislation says something it does not say. Claims · 91 wordsUnfortunately, 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, Reasoning · 29 wordsyet 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.Off pointVague promise Procedure · 22 wordsTherefore, let us separate the facts from the fiction when it comes to Bill C-39, and let us start with the environment.Procedure Claims · 216 wordsI have spent my entire career fighting for the environment, Off pointand I would never support something that would weaken environmental protections. The building Canada strong act would make no changes to the federal environmental standards.¹ 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, ²yet 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. The ask · 45 wordsIf 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. Reasoning · 6 wordsThat is what Parliament is for.Partly on point Claims · 75 wordsHowever, 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, Reasoning · 13 wordswhich is something we have to be very focused on at this time.Partly on point The question · 30 wordsMy 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? Promise · 23 wordsI am open to hearing feedback on this topic from my colleagues across the aisle, from my constituents and from Canadians at large, Partly on pointReasoning · 25 wordsbut when this feedback is rooted in disinformation rather than fact, it is the duty of all members of this House to correct the record. Claims · 32 wordsAnother 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, Reasoning · 18 wordsbecause it is my responsibility to understand the legislation before us and to provide clear information to Canadians.Partly on point Procedure · 27 wordsAs 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.Procedure Claims · 170 wordsMy job is to seek clarity on these concerns and bring this information back to my constituents.Partly on point 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.³ Bill C-39 would put clear limits on that power.⁴ 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.Unearned certainty 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, ⁵because this bill would do the opposite. The ask · 27 wordsAs 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.Partly on point Positioning · 13 wordsBill C-39 is a transformative piece of legislation that would keep Canada moving.Positioning Claims · 35 wordsIt 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, Off pointReasoning · 16 wordsand Canada needs to build greater economic resilience at home while diversifying our trade relationships abroad. Claims · 23 wordsU.S. tariffs have only heightened the urgency of addressing the structural barriers to investment, productivity and trade that are limiting our country’s prosperity.⁶ Reasoning · 11 wordsThis work can be done, and it can be done safely.Partly on point Claims · 34 wordsThrough 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.