And a Good Sunday Morning to you!! As you know, I write this letter each week, to be emailed on Sunday Morning. Writing this as we enter this final stretch of the BC election campaign, I thank all our campaign volunteers and all who have helped in ways big and small. I am deeply grateful to my old friend and prominent former NDP MP, Svend Robinson who endorsed Emily Lowan, and to so many who did! My deepest gratitude is to Emily Lowan, whom I have known since she was 16 and at Claremont High School. She is an extraordinary leader and will be an amazing MLA! I am hoping against hope that we have excellent news from last night’s BC election results, and I can wish you a very HAPPY Sunday morning.
I boarded the Peace Train Friday afternoon at Vancouver’s Central Station. I am travelling with peace activists on VIA Rail. John and I celebrated his birthday on the train. I will get off in Edmonton to get back to Parliament for work Monday morning. The Peace Train activists continue by rail to Ottawa where they will make their voices heard on the critical importance of peace-making. Their slogan “train is a verb", sets the frame on actively training for peace!
Across Canada, we are also collecting signatures on the International Peace Charter petition. It has closed for electronic signatures, but please print it out (below) and collect hard copy signatures from any Canadian citizen, including full address. Mail to my MP office, no postage required!
Petition to the Government of Canada
Whereas:
- Humanity faces escalating global conflict;
- Canada has a proud tradition of international peacekeeping, diplomacy, and human rights leadership;
- The International Peace Charter is a global civil society initiative to affirm principles of peace, including, renouncing war and violence, resolving disputes through dialogue and reconciliation, advancing disarmament and redirecting resources to human development, respecting sovereignty and peoples’ right to self-determination, defending truth and countering disinformation, promoting environmental stewardship to prevent conflict, protecting human dignity and diversity, supporting fair justice and transitional accountability, and fostering collective well-being through mindfulness and reconciliation; and
- This Charter reflects Canadian values of cooperation, inclusion, and justice, and offers a unifying framework for addressing the root causes of conflict while advancing sustainable peace and security.
We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to formally consider, endorse, and ratify the International Peace Charter and work with Parliament, Indigenous governments, civil society, and the international community to integrate the principles of the International Peace Charter into Canadian foreign and domestic policy, ensuring Canada’s leadership role in building a more peaceful, just, and sustainable world.
This week was unusually intense in Parliament.
Monday October 19, normal parliamentary business was suspended as we marked the horrific tragedy at CFB Wainwright. Each leader spoke and then we adjourned for the day. Here are my remarks.
Tuesday was long and difficult, with a midnight sitting. My last debate, on reducing pesticide regulations, wrapped up at 12:40 AM. Wednesday, I am back to Parliament Hill by 7 am. On both days we had press conferences on C-31 and C-39.
I see a common thread through multiple pieces of legislation. I raised the re-alignment of Canadian democracy with the diminution of parliament and centralization of power in the PMO in my Friday question.
We are witnessing the restructuring of Canadian democracy by stealth, reducing the role of parliament, with an unprecedented increase in powers for the prime minister and cabinet.
C-5, C-15, C-30, C-31, and C-39 grant powers to Cabinet to set aside a wide swath of existing laws. as it sees fit.
Restructuring democracy in this way should be transparent with full debate, will we be given that opportunity?
Meanwhile, the debate on C-39 has taken a nasty turn as Liberal MPs, in particular Shannon Miedema of Halifax, accusing those who oppose C-39 of being liars.
I became aware of her Oct 7 speech through an October 17 column by Althia Raj in the Toronto Star:
Opinion | A closer look at six controversial powers inside Mark Carney’s Building Canada Strong Act
“This bill has been subject to a wild disinformation campaign,” Liberal MP Shannon Miedema declared in the House of Commons last week.
The Halifax MP accused opposition members of lying about Bill C-39, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Building Canada Strong Act, telling them the bill does not do things it does.
“I have spent my entire career fighting for the environment, and I would never support something that would weaken environmental protections,” she said.
I don’t know if Miedema read the bill. Having read and listened to MPs’ speeches, it seems many Liberals have not.
The stated goal behind C-39 is to speed up project approvals and permitting so that things get built faster. The government speaks of concurrent reviews instead of consecutive ones, limiting duplication across governments and agencies, strengthening trade corridors and supporting paperless commerce. But there is much more packed into this omnibus bill. As MPs begin six days of hearings (Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Impact Assessment Act, C-69, in comparison, faced 51 days of study in the House and Senate), here are a few controversial aspects explained.
I have never seen a bill drafted to be as deceitful as this one.
— Green Party Leader Elizabeth May
C-39 makes C-5 permanent Bill C-39’s summary mysteriously does not identify a key controversial change, the removal of the five-year sunset clause imposed on C-5, the Building Canada Act, by the opposition last year. Cabinet now gets permanent powers to select what projects are in the national interest (through criteria it determines and can change), those that will be green lit regardless of the outcome of environmental reviews, and to decide whether to exempt projects from certain laws and regulations, for example, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) which prevents wildlife extinction and protects biodiversity, the Fisheries Act, which protects fish habitat and controls the amount of wastewater and industrial discharge released into Canada’s lakes and rivers, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which protects nearly all native birds in Canada.
Bloc Québécois MP Christine Normandin.
Keito Newman/The Canadian Press
A crisis that is already frightening enough for Canadians and Quebecers is being used to justify major legislative changes that will shake the very foundations of the temple of values that we thought were otherwise secure, and that took years to build.
— Bloc Québécois MP Christine Normandin
C-39 creates “regions of national interest” where environmental reviews can’t stop projects
Bill C-39 builds on C-5 by allowing cabinet to designate new “regions of national interest.” These regions will be defined by cabinet, which also decides what kind of activity can happen in them and under what criteria (which cabinet can change or remove).
A regional assessment is required before a region is designated, but the report is not binding on cabinet. There is also no requirement that the assessment consider the types of projects that could be authorized in a region, or that it covers the full geographical area of the designated region.
When the designated minister—currently Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc —is satisfied a project in a region of national interest meets the criteria, he must provide the project’s proponent with a document “deemed” to be every required permit and authorization (all the federal green lights). Indigenous Peoples whose rights may be adversely affected must be consulted prior to the document being issued; and reviews still happen, but they only influence a project’s conditions. They can’t find that the project is too polluting, too dangerous for endangered species, or that it will destroy crucial fish habitat and should not go ahead.
And while an impact assessment is required, C-39 eliminates the planning phase that mandates meaningful public participation. When the economic zones were first floated last spring, the government’s consultation report said Indigenous participants cautioned that “pre-approval” of projects could limit the ability of rights-holders to assert their rights within their territories and would “likely lead to litigation.”
Teme Augama Anishinabek Chief Shelly Moore-Frappier.
Justin Tang/The Canadian Press
When we’re at the table from the start, projects get built. When we are shut out, they end up in court, and nobody gets certainty.
— Teme Augama Anishinabek Chief Shelly Moore-Frappier
C-39 reduces protections for species at risk and opens the door for industry lawsuits
In May, after the Star reported the federal government was proposing to skirt the Species at Risk Act (SARA)’s jeopardy test so projects, such as the new west coast pipeline, could go ahead despite threatening the existence of the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales, a public outcry temporarily shelved the government’s plans.
“We heard directly from Canadians that they did not like this,” Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon said. “They pushed back very strongly, and the proposal is not in this bill.”
That’s true. But C-39 still weakens protections under SARA — the law designed to prevent wildlife species from becoming extinct.
Currently, activities that affect endangered species or their critical habitat need approval from either the environment, fisheries, or Parks Canada minister. Only if the minister believes all reasonable alternatives to the activity have been considered, that all feasible measures will be taken to minimize the impact on the species or their habitat, and that the activity will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species, is the minister allowed to permit the activity and lay out conditions the proponent must abide by, for example, mitigation and monitoring measures.
Bill C-39 changes that in two ways. First, as noted above, if a project in a “region of national interest” meets cabinet’s criteria, SARA’s preconditions — that a project can’t jeopardize the survival of species — don’t appear to matter. This would be an end-run around the jeopardy test.
Second, C-39 obliges the responsible minister to take into account the technical, economic and practical feasibility of the conditions it considers imposing. This happens already in practice, but adding it to the law raises two issues: it risks watering down conditions and protection for threatened species, and it opens the door for industry lawsuits, if conditions are deemed too financially onerous.
The economic feasibility should help determine how an environmental obligation is achieved. It should not become a substitute for achieving the environmental outcome.
— B.C. Liberal MP Patrick Weiler
C-39 allows construction to begin on projects before an impact assessment is completed
Bill C-39 amends the Impact Assessment Act to allow a minister to permit a project proponent to do “that act or thing,” subject to potential conditions, including remediation, prior to the project receiving a decision statement from the minister. (The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission gets similar powers, though entire projects can’t be permitted this way.)
Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson’s office offered as an example, a mining project proponent granted permission to build a road before the project is approved so a construction season isn’t missed. In his speech to the House, B.C. Liberal MP Patrick Weiler called on Parliament to define the kind of work that can and can’t be done.
“It should not be irreversible, it should not prejudge the final decision or replace the assessment itself, and it should continue to respect Indigenous consultation and environmental requirements,” he said.
(C-39) will assure a weary industry that the time to build is now, and there is a path to a decision that will lead to greater investment, jobs creation and, ultimately, strengthening our economic sovereignty.
— Canadian Chamber of Commerce Senior Director Bryan Detchou
C-39 allows a designated minister to override project conditions
The new legislation also allows LeBlanc — the designated minister — to remove conditions on a project that was conditionally approved but is now listed as a project of national interest by cabinet. For example, the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) Project was approved in 2023 subject to 370 legally binding conditions.
In August, the government announced plans to list RBT2 as a project of national interest. This would allow the project to move forward, possibly without enacting some of the conditions intended to protect southern resident killer whales, the Chinook salmon, or the western sandpipers. By listing RBT2 as a project of national interest, not only could its conditions be removed, but it could also jump over the constraints of the Species at Risk Act’s jeopardy test.
When ministers, like LeBlanc speaking to the Senate on Oct. 6, say: “We removed the government’s ability to completely exempt projects from the application of that (Species at Risk) Act” — that is not quite accurate.
The modus operandi of the Carney government in amending federal environmental legislation, rather than doing full repeals and just owning the political fallout of that, it’s been to narrow, exempt, and build in so much discretion that they can, when they need to, for their political purposes, make the laws either not apply at all, or apply in a toothless way. And that way, they can say: ‘Well, we still have these laws.’ But what are they worth now?
— Ecojustice Program Director Charlie Hatt
C-39 cements the federal government’s ability to shut down legal strikes
Bill C-39 introduces pro-labour policies to protect truck drivers from misclassification and airport workers from having their collective agreements scrapped when a new employer takes over. To limit port disruptions, it lets employers, the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB), or the minister seek a single bargaining agent for smaller bargaining units. The most controversial measure — denounced by unions across the country — is the power the labour minister retains to end a strike — without a parliamentary vote.
The government sets out a path to avoid that. Parties who had a binding arbitration imposed, or who had a strike or lockout, or whose agreement ran five years or more, must begin the process earlier. The conciliation period is extended by 30 days, and the minister can appoint a special mediator who, after 21 days, reports on the issues, the parties’ positions, their participation, and the likelihood of a deal. The report will be made public, unless the parties reach an agreement.
“This is designed as a package to drive people to getting their own deals earlier and at the table,” Jobs and Families Minister Patty Hajdu told the Star. She believes public reporting will shame parties into behaving better.
If they don’t, Hajdu can use section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to take measures she considers necessary, including imposing a binding resolution, but only if she believes the strike or lockout adversely affects or might adversely affect the national interest. She can consider, but is not obliged to, whether the lockout or strike has or may have a significant impact on the Canadian economy, if it’s causing or may cause any serious social disruption, or whether the direction to the Board impacts freedom of association.
The Carney government has yet to release the Charter Statement on C-39 potential effects.
Unions argue their bargaining power comes from employers knowing a strike will cause real pain; if Ottawa swoops in to ensure that doesn’t happen, their rights are diminished. In C-39’s background document, the federal government calls workers in federally- regulated sectors (ports, rail, air transportation, telecommunications, etc.) “essential” to Canada’s economic growth — raising questions whether a constitutionally protected right to strike that can’t be exercised is a right at all.
Unions hoped Ottawa would limit government intervention, instead the government’s consultation document suggests it sided with employers who wanted s.107 maintained or strengthened.
Canada’s unions fought hard for the right to strike, and we’re gonna fight equally hard to make sure that we can defend it.
— Canadian Labour Congress President Bea Bruske
While some cabinet ministers and Liberal MPs argue there’s nothing to see in this legislation, a closer look suggests otherwise.
Bill C-39 amends 19 acts and four regulations, it repeals one law and creates a new one. It deserves careful study from Parliamentarians, whether that’s raising some of the issues outlined here, or pressing for details to ensure some of the government’s changes aren’t an attempt to limit judicial oversight or that job cuts at Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans won’t mean reviews are shortchanged. This legislation isn’t a temporary Band-Aid to address the current U.S. administration’s threats. It sets up a system that may be with us for decades to come.
Many thanks to Althia Raj for such thorough journalism. It is far too rare these days. I was shocked when I read her column. It turned out Shannon’s speech was at around 8 pm on October 7. Later that day, around 11 pm, I delivered my speech. I was out of the House at 8 pm and missed her speech, so I looked it up. And it is truly dreadful. Here it is with light edits (my own).
Shannon Miedema,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……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….
Well, that gives you a sense of it. Like Althia Raj, I wonder if Shannon has read the bill. I was so upset. I felt I had no choice but to demand a retraction and an apology. A first- time MP she once worked for the City of Halifax developing climate programmes. She is now chair of the Environment Committee. I contacted her and explained that (in parliamentary language) she had violated my privileges and those of many other MPs. I asked her to apologize. She said she would think about it. On Monday we adjourned without a chance for me to raise the issue. On Tuesday, I alerted the Speaker. It is an essential element of a point of privilege that the point be raised as quickly as possible. He understood that an apology, short of raising a point of privilege, would be preferable. But by Wednesday, I knew I had to make the point of privilege and call Shannon to account publicly. This was not an easy decision.
Mr. Speaker, I rise at this moment on a question of privilege arising from remarks made in this place by the hon. member for Halifax on October 7. I have to admit that I do so with sadness, because I much prefer, as a parliamentarian in this place, particularly as a woman parliamentarian, to encourage younger women in politics. In my 15 years as a member of Parliament, this is the first time I have risen on a question of privilege, but I have given one hour’s notice of my intention to rise on this day on a question of personal privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 48(1).
I now do so because of the remarks that were made. Let me frame this issue in terms of the offence. The offence is one of imputing improper motives and essentially doing indirectly what a member is not allowed to do directly. In reviewing the hon. member for Halifax’s second reading speech on Bill C-39, which I am sure the Speaker shall do, I do believe she violated my privileges and those of others by imputing improper motives and essentially doing indirectly what cannot be done directly, which is basically accusing other members of lying.
I will quote from her speech, in which she said, “This bill [Bill C-39] has been subject to a wild disinformation campaign, some of which has been perpetrated by members of this House.” This can only be understood as a direct attack on the honesty—
(At this point I was interrupted by Chris Bittle Liberal from St. Catherines who accused me of more disinformation! This gets recorded in Hansard as: An hon. member.)
Oh, oh!
So I said, “Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member across the way to not heckle me or repeat the same disparaging remarks that gave rise to this question of personal privilege in the first place.
The Speaker: To the hon. member for St. Catharines, we are on a question of privilege, which the Chair would very much like to hear and understand.
(and he gave me back the floor:)
Mr. Speaker, this is an important point. Had the hon. member said there was misinformation being spread, I would not be standing here right now. However, as a prominent member in this place and as someone who practised environmental law, has read Bill C-39, takes issue with specific points and ties those points to the text of the legislation, it is deeply offensive to be called a liar through the smear of a “wild disinformation campaign”.
It is the job and duty of members of Parliament to study legislation and suggest ways in which legislation can be improved to allow the public to know what our concerns are. In other words, vigorous debate giving rise to disagreement is not a violation of privilege, but to essentially smear the reputation of any member who stands in this place, including the member for Edmonton Strathcona, who was specifically referenced in the member for Halifax’s speech as lying about the impact on labour rights, is.
I repeated those same critiques about part 3 of the bill. This is an omnibus bill with many sections. I will try to be concise about this, but the hon. member repeated that this bill is subject to a “wild disinformation campaign”, and she felt it her duty to separate fact from fiction. To be accused of lying and of having motives of disinformation is deeply offensive.
In reference to our parliamentary privileges, and I specifically look at Standing Order 18 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, there is no question that imputing deliberate deceit and dishonourable motives to parliamentarians, who are fulfilling their constitutional duty to scrutinize legislation, crosses the line. As well, Standing Order 18, and this is established in chapter 3 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, explicitly prohibits any reflection upon a member’s personal or professional integrity, as that obstructs our ability to discharge parliamentary duties without improper interference. There is a very large difference between opposition and deceit.
I did make attempts to ask the hon. member to apologize so I would not find myself standing here and publicly calling out her scurrilous and completely dishonourable speech. In this case, I would conclude by asking that there be a ruling that, in the opinion of this House, the remarks made by the member for Halifax accusing members of a campaign of disinformation constitute an unparliamentary reflection on members’ integrity and that she be directed to unequivocally withdraw the remarks and apologize.
And that is where it sits this weekend.
I hope there will be a clear ruling and an apology.
But it does remain a concern that opposition and criticism of this dreadful omnibus bill gives rise to attacks on my character.
We wait…
We have a daunting task as even the most rudimentary aspects of projects in the “national interest” do not receive even cursory scrutiny as to whether they meet and economic case, much less who C-39 and C-5 together trample Indigenous rights, nature and climate.
Please do continue, as you do, spreading the word, sharing this letter and writing your own letters to the editor.
I am so grateful for your support.
Love and thanks, Elizabeth