One Canadian Economy Bill
Third Reading
June 26, 2025
Honourable senators, I’ve been sitting here for the last few days listening to this very important debate. First of all, let me say that I’m honoured to be here and to be a part of it.
This appears to me to be more about trust than anything else right now — trust in our government, trust in the legislators who put the laws together and trust in our communities and those whom we represent.
Having said that, we have a bill that is being put forward, and we are being asked to approve it. This is very important to our country at this time. As a Canadian, I’m very proud that we are taking the steps that should have been taken many generations ago to bring our country together. We’re at an unusual time in our lives, and at this particular moment, we also have all the premiers coming together to agree on helping to grow our economy and country and put us in what I would call an internationally advantageous position.
That being said, though, I do have concerns — as have many other people — with the speed at which we have had to travel and also with the concerns of the First Nations people in this country who have been asked to trust for a period of over 200 years. It is challenging, ladies and gentlemen, to persuade individuals to trust when they have been marginalized, beaten down and told, “Just trust us. We will work with you.”
Canada needs to grow. Canada needs to be a leader in this world, not only as leaders of peace, but as leaders of growth and innovation. In doing that, sometimes there are decisions that must be made, which makes it very challenging, as people who are sitting here have to make those decisions for many people across this country.
I wish we had taken steps in the earlier phases of this to do what many people are asking us to do. And I say “many people” because I’ve been receiving — as many of you have — emails from across the country and from many people in my community. Let me just state that it has put me on the fence. When the bill was first introduced, I was in favour of it: Yes, we, as Canadians, need to take that bold step. We, as Canadians, need to not stand back and say, “Well, let’s think about this.” However, there is a portion of it that we don’t have to consider and think about.
I’m not going to take much time because I’m starting to sweat and become nervous, but I will say to you that I support this bill. I hope I won’t regret it. I hope the government will do its duty as many of you outlined earlier.
I know there is a legal requirement for the government to consult and engage, and I will trust because — again — I have heard many people here talk about trust. I trust the current government. Many voters in the country trust the current government. They campaigned on some of the things they said they were going to do. We are in the position now where we have to make those decisions. I just hope that my comments do not fall on deaf ears and that the government truly follows through on everything they know they have a duty to do.
To the constituents and individuals in my community who have sent me emails from all over Nova Scotia: You have to trust that we have put people in place to move our country forward. At barbeques, birthday parties and other events, if you begin to talk about our country and its politics, many people will often ask, “Why are we so heavily regulated? Why can’t we do this? Why can’t we do that?” We’re in a position at this juncture in our lives to have that done. I’m going to leave it at that. Thank you.
I was really hoping I wouldn’t come after that tour de force. Thank you, Senator Ince.
I rise briefly to speak to Bill C-5 and to make two points. We talked a lot about the criticisms, but the bill is an important one, as my colleague just pointed out. We are certainly talking about lowering interprovincial barriers and building big things fast.
In terms of the first part of the bill, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act, I’m quite happy with that and I am in support of it. By and large, I’m in support of the second part, the building Canada act. My problem is with sections 21, 22 and 23.
First, I want to make a few comments on the “Henry VIII” clauses. They’ve been referred to often. When I raised it with the minister, she chided me for using colourful language. I have been chided elsewhere for that, too. However, I want to talk about the origin of that term.
In 1539 the English Parliament passed an act called the Statute of Proclamations 1539 some 500 years ago. The purpose of that act was to allow the king to rule by proclamation or decree and completely usurp Parliament. That was what Parliament allowed him to do. The English Parliament then repealed the act eight years later in 1547.
In Canada, as noted in Bill C-5, the consequences of “Henry VIII” clauses include the delegation by Parliament of its functions — and of our functions — to the Governor-in-Council and, in some cases, to a single minister.
The problem was certainly bigger with the original Bill C-5, but the House, in my opinion, has improved the bill considerably.
The opposition has placed some important guardrails and limitations on the bill, and I’d say that the opposition did the government a major favour in terms of improving the bill. Some of the improvements — as outlined by members such as Senator Dalphond and others — include the parliamentary review committee, the conflict of interest guidelines, national security review, Indigenous consultation and the annual review by the minister to be placed before Parliament.
I find myself in agreement with a number of the points that have been made. While I would have preferred to see sections 21, 22 and 23 dropped, they have been contained. If I can use a somewhat oxymoronic term, we now have a situation in which Henry VIII has been contained.
The second point I would like to share — and I beg your indulgence, colleagues — is that we have all received a lot of mail. It’s good for us to have the opportunity to speak to the people who have been writing to us. Certainly, I have been receiving a lot of mail because I had raised this issue of the “Henry VIII” clauses on a few occasions. As is the case with all of you, people are counting on me to vote one way or the other on this act.
Let me share my reasoning with you. I was inspired by the Salisbury convention, so I coined the term “modified Salisbury.” What is the Salisbury convention? It basically says that if a government implements policies that it ran on and that were part of their platform when they were elected, it is generally expected that the upper house — the unelected house — will support those policies whether or not we agree with them.
I have modified this somewhat as follows, and there are five steps to my reasoning. First, the Liberal Party generally promised in their platform to have the “build Canada” project. They didn’t talk about the specific clauses — the “Henry VIII” clauses — but they talked about doing big things and moving fast. Second, the government introduced a bill. Third, they heard criticisms. One can question whether there was enough time for that. Fourth, led by the opposition, the House of Commons made several changes to the bill. Fifth, the House of Commons passed a bill originated by the Liberal Party based on its platform and amended by the opposition parties. So we have a bill that has changed considerably from the way it was organized.
For me, on balance, these are significant changes that have been made. The guardrails have been put in place. These are useful and important, and for that reason, I’m willing to support Bill C-5. Thank you.
I wasn’t planning to speak, so I’ll be brief. I have 45 minutes, but this will be 4 to 5 minutes.
We’ve had great speeches today. I’ve heard comments from newer senators that this is closer to what they expected they would be participating in: consequential, fabulous speeches on a critically important matter. I was truly proud to be here today.
We just had an election in which people were clearly frightened about the instability and uncertainty, and they were looking for assurance and — I think — hope. Prime Minister Carney offered hope in action plans, assurance and calm leadership.
Bill C-5 is among the first steps in the execution of the action plans. I have to say that, from my perspective, execution has been in short supply for a decade here. I am excited to see somebody who lays out a plan calmly and then immediately sets on a path to see it executed. I commend the Prime Minister and the government for this.
I want to thank all senators who brought forward amendments for us to consider. It’s an important part of sober second thought. You did credit to us all with your amendments and the way that you approached them. They challenged the mind. Thank you for each one.
I’m hopeful that government and industry will act with honour as it relates to both Indigenous consultation and — equally important in my mind — Indigenous economic participation.
I have spent 12 years on the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, or APPA. It was the first committee I joined when I arrived here, and I have been on it ever since.
When I first came here, it was a soul-destroying experience to be a part of that committee. I don’t know how the few Indigenous senators that we had on that committee stuck with it. They had hope and faith. It seemed as if every week, every meeting, we destroyed that hope and faith, but they would come back.
I think of Senator Watt, Senator Lovelace Nicholas, the time they invested and the energy and positivity they burned in those early days. We have come so far. We can’t ever forget that. In a decade, we have moved miles.
I hope that Indigenous governments recognize that times have changed and that — as Senator Klyne said — Indigenous governments hold the legal and moral high ground right now. Senator Brazeau is a bit of an expert in the martial arts, and he would say that one of the underpinnings of the martial arts is to use your opponent’s momentum for yourself.
I believe that Indigenous governments need to recognize the high ground they possess and the momentum that is going to come from these major projects as governments and proponents seek consent and seek to use those territories for important national purposes.
I hope those governments can seize for the next seven generations the prosperity, the pride and the culture, the goodwill and respect of Canadians, which I think is upon us right now, in this moment, for those people. It is time for Indigenous people to rise and to lead us toward economic reconciliation.
Those are my hopes. There’s more work to do. See you in the fall. Thank you.
I have a question, maybe two, if Senator Tannas will allow.
A question or a comment has arisen in the last few days about the decade that has been lost here with the economic slowdown and everything. But would you not say that that economic slowdown started in 2008 after the financial crisis? We’ve been, as we say in French, on chloroform since then. Can you comment on that?
I wasn’t talking about that. I was talking about the execution of grand promises and pronouncements without any plan to actually enact them. That was never the Conservative government’s problem. Their problem was — wherever you want to start, 2008, 2011, et cetera. The governments then were highly active.
We have seen in the last decade an important era that we had to go through, in my own mind. It was a period of immense social change, including the recognition of Indigenous rights and the respect that needed to happen and the beginning of reconciliation. But in the last 10 years, there were many failed opportunities to execute, amid all of that other progress. That is all that I was saying, Senator Moncion.
Honourable senators, we have come to the end of our study, our debate and our analysis of Bill C-5. I rise to reiterate our support for Bill C-5.
We are in a perfectly imperfect business, colleagues — legislation building. We have the challenges of trying to take into consideration all the various elements that encompass the role of Parliament. Those are, of course, general elections, the will of the public, the vast regional interests that this country represents from coast to coast, while taking into consideration all of the various components that make Canada this great nation. We emulsify it all together into one powerful ball, and we call that Canadian nation building.
Of course, coming fresh out of a general election, we have the Prime Minister right now who has a clear mandate. All political parties, all parliamentarians have received a mandate to make it work. We’re currently going through an existential crisis. Some of it is due to our own doing; some of it happened out of elements that were beyond our control.
But the history of this country, for about 158 years, has been that when the going gets tough, Canadians get going. We come together. We find solutions. We work hard and we always punch above our weight. This is another challenge we face.
We come at it from different perspectives. Those of us from Quebec have perspectives, as do Atlantic Canadians. Albertans certainly do, as do people from the Prairies and right across the country. The Indigenous people in this country also have their perspectives. We are all individuals with different points of view. Again, those points of view, when we align them and build that chain, we’re unbreakable.
The Prime Minister has put forward a bill. We will give him the benefit of the doubt that he will go with a good willingness to execute. As I said earlier, on the amendment from Senator Prosper, legislation and bills and motions are wonderful, but there always need to be the political will and the drive to get it done.
I would like to believe that Prime Minister Carney, the opposition in the other place, all of us in this place — we are all going to come together and rise to the occasion. Canadians will come together and rise to the occasion. Those of us who believe that rigid environmental balances are needed in this country will have to put a little water in our wine. Those of us who believe we need to unleash resources in this country at any expense will have to put a little bit of water in our wine. We must come to compromises that work, fundamentally, to create wealth, prosperity and energy that will create wealth and prosperity. That is our common goal.
The Indigenous people, though, must be a cornerstone of everything we do. We heard the voices today. Again, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the Prime Minister. He deserves the runway; he just won a general election. We saw, as I said on a number of occasions, the Canadian electorate — regardless of which political party they voted for — give a clear message.
I think we should pass this bill and give the baton to the Prime Minister. But we need to be vigilant. We need to do our jobs and exercise our role here of holding the government to account.
Colleagues, that includes not just the opposition. It includes all senators, independent and otherwise. We should have the courage to call out the government, never be obstructionist, never interfere. We can be constructive in our criticism, but we should use the tools at our disposal to call in the ministers — if need be, even the Prime Minister. We should start calling in deputy ministers and demanding answers. If Senator Housakos asks a question and does not get an answer, it is not an insult to the senator; it is an insult to the institution and to the people we represent.
We need to be vigilant going forward on Bill C-5 and on every other piece of legislation on which we will collectively work to make this a better place.
I would be remiss if I did not finish by simply saying the following:
Senator Mégie, these are your final moments in this great institution. Thank you for your service and for everything you have done in the Senate.
My trusted whip and friend, Senator Seidman, thank you for your service to our caucus.
To my friend Senator Gold — I think he saw me get up and he thought it was Question Period again and then he ran off. But to Senator Gold, who has served with distinction as the Government Representative, enduring all the questions from myself and my colleagues and everyone in this place, he has done it so well. We thank him for his service as well.
On that note, I wish everyone a wonderful summer. I hope that I do not have to get back on my feet for the rest of this session. Thank you.
Are senators ready for the question?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed, on division.)
