Shannon Miedema

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, our culture and economy are built on the water. This is especially true in my riding of Halifax, located in beautiful Nova Scotia, Canada's ocean playground. From climate change to pollution, the health of our oceans is under threat. It is why I am so excited that next year, our government will be hosting the Our Ocean Conference in my riding. Can the Minister of Fisheries tell the House how our government is addressing these threats and protecting our waters?

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.

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.

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.

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.