Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act. However, I rise today, haunted, in a sense, by the ghost of a bill we passed in this chamber in 2019: Bill C-69. You might say that my entire time in the Senate has been stalked by the looming presence of Bill C-69.

The first time I ever rose in the Senate was on the day of my swearing-in: October 16, 2018. Now, it is certainly unusual for a senator to speak on her very first day in the Senate, but the day of my swearing-in happened to coincide with the presence of Amarjeet Sohi, the then Minister of Natural Resources, who was here for ministerial Question Period. I had known Minister Sohi for years because he was an Edmonton city councillor when I was the city columnist for the Edmonton Journal, so I wanted to ask him a question — not just to say hello — specifically about Bill C-69, which amended the Impact Assessment Act, and which was tremendously controversial in Alberta.

When I told the clerk that I wanted to ask a question — minutes after being sworn in and before joining any group — she laughed and told me that would likely not be possible. But to humour me, she put my name on the question list at the very bottom. I was as surprised as I was delighted when the Speaker, George Furey, allowed me to ask the very last question of the afternoon, specifically about whether the environmental impact assessment rubric for Bill C-69 would take into account the downstream impact of fossil fuel consumption.

When I gave my first speech in the Senate three weeks later, it wasn’t a personal speech about my family or my life’s work. It was, instead, about Bill C-69.

The bill was supposed to make the approval of new major projects, such as interprovincial power lines, pipelines, port expansions and rail lines, more reliable. There had been a problem — let’s recall — with major projects making it most of the way through the environmental assessment process only to have court challenges to those assessments derail big projects at the last minute. Project proponents were asking for more assurance up front that they wouldn’t have the rug pulled out from under them at the last minute. At the same time, Indigenous peoples and environmental groups were demanding better consultation so that their voices and concerns would be considered during, and not at the end of, the process.

In my Senate debut, I said:

We need a better, more transparent and more nimble process to approve new pipeline infrastructure. We need an efficient, effective regulatory regime that gives investors some assurance that projects can actually be built.

I continued:

But that doesn’t mean running roughshod over environmental concerns or over Indigenous sovereignty. Indeed, the only way we can create a regulatory system that provides investor confidence is by having an open, comprehensive and comprehensible template to ensure that the environment is protected and that First Nations and Metis settlements are respected partners in the collaborative process.

That was true in November of 2018, and it remains every bit as true today. Sadly, however, Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, never became that template. And I greatly fear Bill C-5 won’t get us there either. Bill C-5, after all, is supposed to do what Bill C-69 was supposed to do — give proponents clarity up front and give First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities a meaningful voice.

But I worry that in our rush to “fix” Bill C-69, which, let’s recall, was supposed to fix CEAA 2012, the Harper government’s Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, we may end up right back where we started, with Indigenous voices marginalized and environmental concerns sidelined. That’s not only a problem for the honour of the Crown and the future of our environment. Far from giving certainty to project proponents, it could just fuel more court challenges, more protests and more confusion. Shortcuts make long delays. Bill C-5 could end up backfiring, stalling projects that we actually do need.

Now, Bill C-69 certainly was not rushed through the Senate. After significant debate, we sent it for thorough study to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. We heard from hundreds of witnesses from the energy sector, the mining sector, the transportation sector, environmental groups, Indigenous nations and organizations, from premiers and academics and industry analysts. We held public hearings all across the country: in Vancouver, Calgary, Fort McMurray, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, St. John’s, Halifax, Saint John and Quebec City.

And when I say public, I mean public. We were interrupted by protesters in Calgary who feared the bill would cripple Alberta’s energy economy. In Winnipeg, environmental and Indigenous protesters stopped the hearings for a time, marching through the hotel ballroom where we were meeting.

Then, it came time for amendments. I remember, as a rookie senator, watching in a kind of awe as senators Howard Wetston and Yuen Pau Woo took apart the bill — which was a shaggy mess — and put it back together with some kind of logic.

In the end, the Senate passed 188 amendments to the bill, and the government accepted 99 of them in whole or in part. Even after those amendments, the act was still seriously flawed. The parts of it which dealt with major projects within one province have largely been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. Meantime, the legislation has been blamed, fairly or not, for the apparent paucity of big projects approved since its inception.

Bill C-5, of course, attempts to “fix” that by allowing the government to pre-designate certain proposals as projects of national interest — or PONIs, if you will. Once a project is pre‑designated as a PONI, the bill would allow it to be fast-tracked through environmental and other regulatory approval processes. If things don’t move fast enough, well, the bill would give the superminister responsible for PONIs the power to skip over the requirements of a long list of legislation, such as the Fisheries Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Canada Marine Act or the Impact Assessment Act itself. Those are the very laws meant to safeguard our environment.

Just before they rose, our colleagues in the other place did pass some smart last-minute amendments, as Senator Housakos mentioned. Those curtailed the power of the superminister to run roughshod over other pieces of legislation, including the Indian Act and the Canada Labour Code. They added amendments to improve transparency of the process and to ensure that provinces and territories would be fully consulted. They removed the most problematic and obviously abusive parts of the “Henry VIII clause,” which would have given the Governor-in-Council sweeping and unacceptable superpowers.

So, this version of Bill C-5 is better than the original, but it remains deeply flawed. The bill still front-end loads the approval process by asking for consultation and accord with affected parties to designate something as a national interest project before the environmental and other impact assessments are done. This prejudging could lead to problems if a project has been granted PONI status, and then experts subsequently learn that the project could present a major risk, say, to a whale-calving site or to the nesting grounds of a rare and endangered bird or to a groundwater aquifer.

I worry, too, that designating something as a project of national interest, in itself, could taint the independence of any environmental analysis, since the project would go in with special status.

And the pace with which this bill has moved through Parliament has, in and of itself, damaged hard-won relations of trust with First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities. We have worked so hard on reconciliation in the last decade. This feels like a betrayal of so much of that work.

This bill needed more debate and analysis than we were allowed to give it. Our Committee of the Whole hearings were useful, but we should have sent a bill this important to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources and to the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples for proper study. At the very least, I wish we had been given the politically unconstrained opportunity to make our own amendments here. Instead, we’ve been painted into a corner because the bill has been sent to us after the other place has risen.

The government wants to move the conversation around vital nation-building projects, they say, from “whether” to “how.” Yes, some of the long list of preconditions required by Bill C-69 did seem purposely designed as excuses to build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything. But I worry that we’re now overcorrecting in expediting megaprojects that may not be in the local interest, even if they are in the national interest. Frankly, I worry that the aura of urgency around Bill C-5 may create unrealistic expectations that may come back to bite this new government.

Some of the rhetoric around this bill has created the unfortunate and false impression that the government itself will be funding a stable of nation-building PONIs, that the government will be using this legislation to fix the Chignecto Isthmus or build a pipeline to Prince Rupert, a new rail line to Churchill or a new all-season road to Norman Wells. When it becomes clear that there is no federal funding attached to this bill, I think there are likely to be disappointment and political backlash.

So let us be clear. There is no Santa Claus. There is no “Pink Pony Club,” where we’re all “ . . . gonna keep on dancing . . . .” This bill is not a tickle trunk full of public infrastructure projects. This is primarily a bill about creating greater certainty for project proponents who are using their own capital to build projects that match market conditions. And if those private project proponents don’t feel that Bill C-5 gives them certainty, then we will have rushed here, running roughshod over the rights and sensibilities of Indigenous communities for naught.

I want to end with a message to my fellow Albertans, especially those who made Bill C-69 the scapegoat for every frustrated ambition.

My Alberta friends, I want to speak to you directly and directly to political leaders in our province who are playing with fire as they pander to separatists and racists and fan embers into flames.

Albertans, if you really want a pipeline, be it to the Pacific or to the east, face some hard truths. No private enterprise is going to risk tens of billions of dollars to build that kind of national infrastructure if they think there is any chance that Alberta could separate. A pipeline will only be built if there are a market case and investor confidence. Prime Minister Carney is giving you what you said you wanted — the de facto repeal of Bill C-69. If you throw that opportunity away by threatening to break up the country, on your heads be it.

But I hope, when it comes to nation building, Albertans can have an imagination beyond oil pipelines. What about a western electrical grid that allows Alberta greater access to green hydro power from British Columbia, and Saskatchewan greater access to green hydro power from Manitoba? What about passenger rail connecting Edmonton and Calgary, or a network of blue hydrogen pipelines so that we can have hydrogen trains and buses and power plants?

We need bold new projects that actually improve our environmental future by greening our grid and our transportation systems. We need projects that empower and employ and enrich Indigenous communities and accord them the respect they deserve, legally and morally, as full partners in Confederation. We need those projects for Alberta, for Canada and for our collective futures.

I wish that we had not rushed this bill. I wish the Senate had been allowed to provide true sober second thought, to assure Canadians that this was the best possible legislation to help build the national consensus that this legislation will require if we really want it to work. Because in this moment of global crisis, when old alliances are crumbling and economic certainties are dissolving, we really do need to dream big, to build big and to build a united nation with a sovereign future. I just don’t know if Bill C-5 will get us there or if, like a revenant of Bill C-69 before it, it will come back to haunt us and thwart our vaulting ambitions.

Thank you. Hiy hiy.

Honourable senators, I rise today to take part in the debate at second reading of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act. My remarks will be brief, but there are a few important points I’d like to highlight.

Part 1 of Bill C-5, which enacts the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act, is undeniably eagerly awaited. I welcome this important first step toward removing barriers to interprovincial trade and worker mobility. In this uncertain diplomatic climate, we have a unique opportunity to come together and take back control of our economic future. Canadian unity gives us the strength to weather any storm, from coast to coast to coast. I commend the government for putting forward this vision for our country right from the start, and I hope that, in a spirit of cooperative federalism, more barriers can come down through strong federal leadership and ongoing collaboration among the provinces and territories.

Last week, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce released a document encouraging us to think about the big projects our country could undertake to bolster its economic security and resilience. These projects include ensuring the supply of critical minerals and materials; strategic trade coordination; food chain security; trade enablement; AI adoption acceleration; digital regulatory interoperability; energy sustainability, affordability and security; carbon measurement and compliance efficiency; global health; infrastructure resilience; and cybersecurity.

These projects are key to our country’s growth and productivity at a defining moment for our future. Bill C-5 invites us to be open-minded and to take a forward-looking approach to the prosperity we want to bring to Canada.

That being said, I will now talk about Part 2 of the bill, which enacts the building Canada act.

The intent of this legislation — to accelerate progress and streamline project approvals — is both commendable and timely. I believe this is something all Canadians can support.

That said, the version initially tabled in Parliament raised significant concerns. It granted broad discretionary authority to the executive branch to unilaterally designate projects as being of national interest, with no oversight or safeguards.

Provisions under the proposed sections 21 to 23 would have allowed the government to override any law and regulation. The bill also lacked clear and robust language affirming the constitutional duty to consult Indigenous peoples and did not adequately reflect the need to respect areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Those who stand to be affected by these decisions must be given a meaningful voice in the process. Given this chamber’s role in providing sober second thought and protecting minorities, the lack of safeguards and oversight, along with the concentration of power, calls for careful attention.

According to the constitutional interpretation established by the Supreme Court in Reference re Secession of Quebec, we should ensure that the legislative proposal is consistent with the following principles: federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, as well as respect for minorities. These principles should guide our overall assessment of the constitutional rights and obligations involved in this bill.

In the context of Canada and our democracy, it is difficult to envision a contemporary situation that would clearly justify granting near-absolute powers to the executive. The principle of democracy calls for a reasonable balance among the legislative, executive and judicial branches. While the initial version of the bill appeared to raise concerns about this balance, the subsequent amendments represent a step toward addressing those issues and reflect an ongoing dialogue about the appropriate distribution of powers in a democratic society, including in times of crisis.

The belief that a crisis justifies all exceptional measures can set dangerous precedents. As legislators, we must remain vigilant and evaluate legislative proposals on a case-by-case basis. The first version of the bill received by Parliament, which informed our study in the Committee of the Whole, underscores the importance of a Parliament that exercises its legislative powers with rigour and diligence, while keeping in mind the principles inherent in our Constitution.

The amendments proposed by the other place also offer comfort in relation to other constitutional principles, notably federalism and respect for minorities.

I am delighted to see that the work carried out in the other place has paid off and will enhance oversight, transparency and protections regarding the environment and the health and rights of Indigenous peoples through the implementation of the bill.

I would, however, like to point out a particular omission in the series of proposed amendments with respect to the public registry. It is important to mention it in this chamber so that our debates address this observation. I’m referring to the comments Senator Woo made earlier.

The creation of new requirements for establishing a public registry and disclosing detailed information on the projects is clearly a good measure. However, I note the omission in new proposed subsection 5(1.1) of the environmental factor, which is on the list under proposed subsection 5(6). This particular subsection lists factors relevant to the designation of a national project by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the minister.

Despite the absence of binding language in this regard in the legislation, I still expect the public registry to include information about the extent to which a project “is expected to” contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change. In my opinion, including this information in the registry is necessary and would be a good practice that is also consistent with the legislators’ intent, based on the full list in proposed subsection 5(6). I would like the government to make a formal commitment to include this information in the public registry.

Before I wrap up my speech, I would like to stress one last essential point. The bill, as amended, strengthens Parliament’s oversight role, notably via a parliamentary committee.

Colleagues, that means our work is only just beginning. We will have to continue to monitor the implementation of the bill in a way that is consistent with our duties and privileges as guardians of the principles underpinning our Constitution.

In short, this bill offers Canada an opportunity to get ahead of the major economic, environmental and geopolitical changes to come. That’s why we need to ensure that the powers that it confers are exercised in a way that is consistent with a modern vision of Canada, particularly with regard to environmental and health standards. I have confidence in this government. However, I think it would be imprudent to trust it blindly. Since we are not subject to the same constraints as the elected members in the other place, the privileges and responsibilities conferred on us as senators require sustained vigilance and rigorous scrutiny of every bill, including those coming from the government.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Part 2 of Bill C-5, the building Canada act, whose stated aim is to speed up approvals for major energy infrastructure and natural resource development projects.

I fully understand the very specific context in which this bill was created. Canada has had to endure the shock of a tariff war with its American neighbour, and this conflict has created a great deal of uncertainty and caused many layoffs. The Canadian economy has been shaken, and solutions must be found to revitalize economic activity.

The goal is commendable. However, the chosen approach is incredibly unusual and almost unprecedented: giving the government the power to suspend laws passed by Parliament in order to speed up approvals for major national projects. I’ve been following the news for a long time, and I can’t recall any federal government ever suspending laws to deal with a recession.

Former Conservative minister Lisa Raitt summed up the situation perfectly in response to a question that I asked her in Committee of the Whole last week. She said:

The language of the bill is very broad, and it does give the minister — whoever is appointed — carte blanche in a lot of ways to determine which of the acts.

 . . . the government obviously felt that they needed to have this very broad power, which is very broad, admittedly, and can be terrifying, because the government is basically saying, “Trust us. We’re going to do a great job.”

Some of the amendments adopted by the other place require more transparency on the part of the government about the exact nature of the projects and more parliamentary oversight. MPs also made sure that certain laws could not be suspended. Yes, those are improvements, but they are not enough to allay concerns.

What’s more, because the government was in a hurry, we heard our witnesses before they had a chance to review the House of Commons amendments. We therefore lacked the external expertise to assess these amendments. This resulted in a very rapid and approximate study process for a chamber that is supposed to conduct a sober second review of the legislation before it. The use of committee of the whole, where ministers appear before all senators, has serious limitations. It is difficult to ask more direct follow-up questions or to interrupt a witness who is not really answering the questions, in short, to obtain more in-depth answers, which can be done more effectively in specialized Senate committee meetings with only 12 senators.

There is a reason why complex bills take some time to study. Finding errors or unexpected consequences of certain clauses requires research, consultation, rewording, and so on. I have experienced this in the past. It took more than a year of deliberations to pass important bills such as Bill C-11 on web-based platforms and Bill C-18 on broadcasting. Filibustering does happen, but it’s not the norm.

In any event, that is not the reality facing senators. The members of the House of Commons ended their parliamentary session on Friday. They are no longer in Ottawa. It will be very hard for us to adopt amendments and ask the House of Commons to vote on them because the members would have to be recalled during the summer. Why did the other place not extend the sitting for at least another week to give us the opportunity to do our work properly? I’m not privy to any inside information, but ever since the Senate gained more independence and started proposing amendments to bills, we’ve been hearing that this really irritates several members of the government. In fact, the sponsor of this bill, our colleague Senator Yussuff, told us at the end of his speech that he hoped the bill would be passed without amendment.

So we’re stuck. When we propose improvements to a bill, we’re told we don’t have the legitimacy to do so because we are unelected. When a bill is quickly passed as is, we’re told that this demonstrates our complete uselessness.

Andrew Coyne, a long-time critic of the Senate, puts it this way in his latest book that I’m reading, The Crisis of Canadian Democracy:

We would appear to be caught in a dilemma. A Senate that merely waves through bills passed by the commons is superfluous; A senate that defeats them is a menace. The dilemma will persist so long as we fail to address the basic underlying contradiction between the Senate’s immense legal powers and its total lack of democratic legitimacy.

Naturally, this is Andrew Coyne’s opinion. I do not share all of it.

With the procedural aspect out of the way, let’s return to the content of Bill C-5.

In Committee of the Whole, Minister Dominic LeBlanc reiterated Prime Minister Mark Carney’s commitment:

Clearly, the bill is not being considered by the Senate, by Parliament, with a view to imposing any kind of project on Indigenous people or on a province or territory.

Based on this commitment, it seems like the intention is certainly not to push ahead without the consent of Indigenous peoples or provincial governments to launch a major project in their province. However, the amendment passed in the House concerning the provinces is not entirely clear. It states that the federal government has to consult the government of a province where a project is to take place, and that the federal government has to obtain written consent from the provincial government in question if the project falls within areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. What happens if this national project has an impact on the environment, which is a jurisdiction shared by both levels of government?

Furthermore, why doesn’t the bill state that the federal government would accept an environmental assessment performed by a province, rather than cause further delay by requiring a federal environmental assessment as well? The Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement has also noted that the bill gives no clear indication regarding the continued application of provincial laws to designated projects.

At this stage, what matters is not what people say. What matters must be written in the bill. I’m particularly concerned about the federal government’s power to fast-track things and choose which environmental protection targets it wants to achieve. Several acts, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, can be suspended. As my colleague, Senator Simons, explained, a national project can be pre-approved before its environmental impact is known.

I realize that Bill C-69 on federal environmental impact assessments, which we passed, has had major, even outsized consequences, creating unacceptable delays in carrying out projects. Still, we could have targeted that legislation specifically instead of every single piece of pro-environment legislation.

A proposed alternative is just as worrisome. For example, paragraph 5(6)(e) of the building Canada act states that the government may choose, but is not obligated to choose, projects that will:

contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.

In other words, the government is giving itself the right to choose major projects that will increase our greenhouse gas emissions even as wildfires proliferate across the country and we are already behind schedule on our climate targets.

In Committee of the Whole, I asked Minister LeBlanc whether pipeline construction was really a project of the future, a 21st‑century project, when we think of our planet’s survival. His answer was meant to be reassuring:

You’re right about pipelines getting a lot of air time. I said as much to reporters on the record a few times, even on the air. I would say that, at the first ministers’ meeting in Saskatoon, less than 5% of the conversations were about pipeline projects.

If we believe in a green transition, shouldn’t future national projects contribute to a low-carbon, biodiversity-friendly economy? Should we trust the government and grant it these extraordinary powers in the hope that the right balance will be struck? Does the severity of the crisis with our main trading partner justify suspending laws? There are no easy answers to these questions.

I will personally be voting against Bill C-5.

Honourable senators, this newly elected government promised to bring us together to uphold Canadian sovereignty and Canadian values with “elbows up.” To this end, we were advised that Part 2 of Bill C-5 is aimed at promoting national projects that build up Canada. Regrettably, the process thus far with this legislation has raised significant concern amongst Canadians.

The rushed legislative process undertaken with respect to this bill raises the spectre of expedited future projects being pre‑approved, with irreversible and generational consequences for health, communities, economies and the environment, over the protests of those most negatively affected, without adequate work to understand — much less obtain consent regarding — likely risks.

Canadians see a risk that, rather than empowering all of us, Bill C-5 will hand unprecedented power to a few in cabinet. Instead of bringing us together in the face of threats made by our neighbour to the south, it risks exacerbating inequality and division, emulating and reinforcing attempts to power grab.

Indigenous leaders, with decades of experience working to defend inherent rights of sovereignty and self-determination, have been especially clear.

Former minister of justice and former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould assessed the passage of Bill C-5 in the other place as follows:

Today Canada became weaker.

Bill C-5 gives unchecked powers in a few officials, overrides laws of Parliament, & steamrolls constitutional rights.

Our economy won’t grow by creating conditions of uncertainty & conflict... Our sovereignty is not protected by being anti-democratic.

Last week, National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak urged us:

We know how it feels to have Trump at our borders. Let’s not do that and have Trump-like policies with each other. . . .

Our late colleague Senator Sinclair challenged each of us and the nation of Canada with four questions: Where do we come from? Where are we going? Why are we here? Who are we?

The Bill C-5 legislative process and approach to nation building shape what Canada stands for and who we are.

The amendments made to Bill C-5 so far provide some positive safeguards, but — as acknowledged by MPs from every party in the other place — they are not sufficient. Bill C-5 still grants the government unfettered discretion to define, pre-approve and designate national interest projects without first assessing their risks.

The five factors that the government may use to determine national interest projects remain optional instead of mandatory. Proposed section 5.1, which requires governments to report on how projects will respond to these factors, crucially omits the requirement of the government to report on how projects will further the goals of “. . . clean growth . . .” and “. . . meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.”

Amendments now protect some legislation, such as the Indian Act, but Bill C-5 still mostly leaves in place the government’s “. . . unchecked power to exclude or alter . . .” laws.

The pace with which this bill has barrelled through Parliament leaves significant concerns about democracy and respect for law and legal rights unanswered.

National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak emphasized what this means for First Nations, and ultimately for Canadians as a whole, when she urged us to take time and do things properly — to take the summer to talk with each other, to work through the bill and make it stronger and to address the parts detrimental to the rights of First Nations peoples. She was clear in saying:

. . . ramming something through in 7 or 14 days is not the Canadian way. All we ask is you follow your own rules, follow your own laws and look at how far we have come. Let’s not step years back and hurt that very delicate relationship that’s now coming. People are trying to work on that together. First Nations are trying . . . .

She continued, “This will impact them and their children and grandchildren ahead.”

First Nations interested in the potential economic opportunities provided by Bill C-5 have nevertheless been troubled to see it fast-tracked without meaningful consultation.

The Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, have been clear that part of the meaningful work and consultation that the federal government must undertake with First Nations rights holders must involve, at a minimum, incorporation into Bill C-5 the standard of free, prior and informed consent required by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

At committee in the other place, an amendment to this effect was, unfortunately, defeated.

While Minister LeBlanc has reiterated, including in his recent letter to us, that “. . . full consultation . . .” will take place, many remain concerned about what this will amount to in practice.

As the AFN pointed out during the Committee of the Whole, while the preamble of Bill C-5 speaks to the UN declaration act and the duty to consult as “. . . interpretative . . . .” there is no “. . . concrete inclusion in the bill of those standards. . . .” nor an “. . . operationalization of those standards . . .” — including free, prior and informed consent.

The to-be-created Indigenous advisory council is characterized as a response to the government’s consultation obligations, yet we are provided “. . . no information about what the government actually intends . . .” or how it foresees meeting the standard of free, prior and informed consent. AFN rightly caution that under Article 19 of the UN declaration, an advisory council of government appointees, even if Indigenous, cannot constitute an entity with which the government can carry out consultation or obtain consent.

As Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami — or ITK — President Natan Obed reminded us, absent the clear incorporation of free, prior and informed consent within Bill C-5, we risk falling further into the trap of paying only lip service to Indigenous rights. He testified to senators that:

It has been Canada’s weakness that it pats itself on the back for being a great champion of Indigenous peoples, an upholder of the rule of law and respect for Indigenous peoples’ rights, while at the same time acting very differently through its legislation and practices. I think of those things as being borne out of not only ignorance, but also a clear decision about whose rights matter and whose don’t — and how to get to an end goal that makes Canada feel good about itself while still trampling on the very rights it says it upholds.

In the wake of inadequate consultation with respect to the bill, Indigenous peoples are understandably concerned by vague invocations of the UN declaration when it comes to Bill C-5.

Mere days after the Speech from the Throne reaffirmed that:

As Canada moves forward with nation-building projects, the Government will always be firmly guided by the principle of free, prior, and informed consent —

— the AFN reported that the Crown failed to meet its legal, constitutional and international obligations for deep consultation and consent when it came to assessing Bill C-5’s substantial risks to collective rights of First Nations.

First Nations rights holders were instead:

. . . given an unreasonably tiny window both before and after tabling, with much less engagement in a substantive exchange of views. . . .

Indigenous peoples already disproportionately bear the burden of Canada’s policies of irresponsible environmental degradation. Inadequate consultation with respect to Bill C-5 and the natural resource projects that it enables will only exacerbate this travesty. Why have 34 First Nations lost any hope of having input on Bill C-5? Because the entire time we have been considering Bill C-5, they have been fighting forest fires caused by human-induced climate change that threaten the lives and worlds of their peoples.

Like the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, ITK President Obed reminded us that “. . . the negative effects of natural resource development within Indigenous communities . . .” — include — “. . . gender-based violence within natural resource development projects. . . .”

There has been virtually no discussion of this dimension of Bill C-5.

Jody Wilson-Raybould said, “We need to be clear that this new economy is not going to be built on the backs of . . .” — indigenous peoples in their communities — “. . . and it’s not going to be built on the lands that . . .” — they — “. . . have protected for generations.”

In the past, Canada has too often abdicated its responsibilities and relied on Indigenous peoples to challenge inadequate environmental standards and protect the air, land and water upon which we all rely. The costs for Indigenous peoples have included everything from litigation fees to criminalization for attempts to address Canada’s failure to respect Indigenous laws and self-determination.

Bill C-5 is generating the need for young Indigenous community leaders to once again prepare to challenge — and therefore shoulder — this unjust burden. Indigenous youth rallied against Bill C-5 on Parliament Hill, the beginning of what Ramon Kataquapit — a youth councillor with the Chiefs of Ontario and Nishnawbe Aski Nation and a member of Attawapiskat First Nation in northern Ontario — describes as “. . . a movement” to protect their cultures and lands.

Terra Roy, another youth councillor with the Chiefs of Ontario, recalling their mother taking them to Idle No More protests more than a decade ago, says:

It’s frustrating that at 11 years old I was doing that, and now again at 23 . . . If I’m tired of having to fight this again, I can only imagine how my grandmother feels.

AFN also emphasize that when it comes to nation-building projects:

. . . we want to talk about jobs, the economy and growth, but that’s not going to happen unless the infrastructure gap in First Nations communities is closed.

They continue:

Without action on clean water, on wastewater infrastructure and proper schools, First Nations will be left out from the one Canadian economy.

AFN’s proposals for clean water, housing, schools and other essentials would be investments with significant positive impacts on the Canadian economy. Redressing these inequalities and legacies of colonialism should most definitely be part of nation building under Bill C-5. National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak spoke to us directly about our duties in the context of Bill C-5. She said:

. . . I see the onus on all of you, the heavy lifting as you are sitting here trying to get through this. At the same time, I think there is a huge opportunity here to do things differently in this country, to work together and come together. Let’s get everybody to the table: the Prime Minister, the whole of cabinet, senators and First Nations people.

She continued:

There are a lot of treaty people out there, people with inherent rights from coast to coast to coast, who want to come here and talk to you. You should hear from them; give them that respect.

Colleagues, if Bill C-5 is proposing to build Canada’s next chapter, we can and must insist on a solid foundation. This means upholding principles of equality, justice and democracy; protections for the air, land and water that sustain us; and respect for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the inherent sovereignty and self-determination of First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples. In these times of urgent need for action, let us not fail. Meegwetch. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Pate. Government officials indicated they had sent letters to 66 Indigenous groups, yet the Ontario Chiefs said that everything is being done in a rush. Is it true that the federal government blocked First Nations from Ontario from speaking in the committee?

I understand that’s what the claim was, so I believe that to be true.

Senator Pate, would you agree that when you’re consulting with groups, you don’t need to consult with people who agree with you, since there’s nothing to accommodate? You have to go to the ones who disagree, because then you can accommodate with respect to whatever it is you’re doing. Would you agree with that?

Well, in my experience, consultation is done with people who have an interest in the issues that you’re raising. Sometimes they may be in agreement with an action being proposed and sometimes not. Certainly, it’s obviously not to exclusively consult with those who agree with you.

Senator Pate, thank you. Are you aware of the following initiatives — which are just a start — that the Prime Minister will be holding full-day meetings with First Nations rights holders on July 17, meetings with Inuit at the end of July and with Métis to follow? These meetings will reach to the community level and will be an open dialogue on the path forward. There are over 700 First Nations alone, so they will necessarily include more than 125 rights holders. This will layer on top of regional outreach. The government will also work with an Indigenous advisory council, which will be stood up as part of a major projects office, to develop consultation protocols that reflect these conversations.

Senator, consultations with Indigenous groups are required in the legislation both when deeming a project to be in the national interest and at the condition-setting stage. It will be an ongoing process. The Prime Minister has also been clear that he feels that Canada is bound to the principle of free, prior and informed consent. Would you agree these are positive steps in the right direction?

Senator Pate, I’m sorry, but the time allotted for debate has expired. Are you asking for more time to answer the question?

If it’s the will of the chamber, yes.

Is it agreed, senators?

Yes, I certainly agree that the commitments made by the Prime Minister are a very positive step in the right direction. The issue remains that many First Nations are concerned about the fact that now we need to see if these steps will be followed through on. The bill will pass before those actions are taken, and that was the point I was trying to make. Absolutely, though, those commitments are important.

As I’ve said to every person who has contacted me by telephone and by — I haven’t responded to all the emails, to be clear. Sorry to those of you who have emailed me, but now you know what I’d say: those commitments are important. If they’re not followed through on, it puts an added obligation on all of us to make sure they are.

I think the letter from Minister LeBlanc was helpful. It would be even more helpful if there were a similar communiqué from the Prime Minister.

Honourable senators, Bill C-5 reflects a major commitment to kick-start the Canadian economy after years of underinvestment.

As the chamber of sober second thought, the Senate has a unique opportunity to ensure that the bill creates value for the entire economy.

I want to thank and congratulate all colleagues who have already taken part in the debate and helped to shed light on the key issues raised by this bill.

In Committee of the Whole, legitimate concerns were raised on the environment, the ancestral rights of Indigenous peoples, and the scope of the concept of “project of national interest.”

However, let me point out one disturbing paradox: No one can claim to be kick-starting the economy without enlisting the full participation of those who are the driving force behind it every day. I’m talking about our SMEs.

Bill C-5 cannot ignore SMEs, and nor can we.

With over 30 years of experience as an entrepreneur, I’ve come to understand, deeply and personally, the central role that small- and medium-sized businesses, or SMEs, play in our economy. It’s one of the key reasons why I chose to serve in the Senate. I wish to be a voice for SMEs and to ensure they have a seat at the table when major economic decisions are made.

The numbers speak for themselves: SMEs represent 98% of all businesses in Canada, account for 54% of total employment and contribute nearly half of our GDP.

However, they are conspicuously absent from calls for tenders and government procurement.

According to figures published by Public Services and Procurement Canada, the volume of federal contracts awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises was 38% in 2008, 32% in 2022, 24% in 2023, and 20% in 2024.

It should be noted that, during this period, some SMEs may have been absorbed by larger companies or bought up internationally. That said, the number of SMEs has continued to increase, which makes these figures even more alarming.

This decline is no accident. It is the result of systemic barriers that have been identified for years.

Several high-quality parliamentary reports — in particular those of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, or OGGO, published in 2009 and 2018 — have highlighted some major barriers.

The committee in the other place identified the following barriers, to name but a few. First, the excessive complexity of procurement processes and the large number of documents required. What is the delay in simplifying these procedures and finally adapting them to the realities of SMEs?

Second, unequal access to information and the complexity of the language used. Why are tender documents not always identical in French and English? Also, why is the terminology so complex?

Third, our SMEs don’t have the human resources to respond to calls for bids. How can they bid when the cost of participating is sometimes more than the contract is worth?

Fourth, the government systematically prioritizes the lowest bid over quality or innovation.

Lastly, the lengthy waits for payment cause serious cash flow difficulties for our SMEs.

These systemic barriers affect all of our SMEs, but their impact is felt even more by under-represented groups, such as women-owned businesses.

The government is clearly aware of the issue. It has already set a target of 15% for women-owned businesses. While this goal was met in terms of contract volume from 2023 to 2024, no data has been released regarding the value of these contracts. It is crucial that women-owned businesses are not confined to low‑value contracts especially in high-value sectors.

Another systemic bias that is still holding women-owned SMEs back in 2025 is access to financing. Lenders ask women subjective questions that they would never dare ask a man. I’ve experienced this myself, as have many other women.

A man will be asked about his business’ growth potential, but a woman will be asked to justify what she has achieved so far and to detail her expansion plans. Then she’ll be asked questions such as “How do you plan to maintain work-life balance while running a business?” or “Is there someone who could act as your guarantor?”

Visible minority women entrepreneurs are frequently asked whether they have ever bid on public contracts. Most of them say no, not because they lack the will or the skills, but because they haven’t yet been given the chance. Because they’re excluded from the outset, they end up not trying anymore.

Those questions have nothing to do with the capacity or credibility of their business. Still, the same doubts persist. Are these women really capable of meeting the contract requirements? Can they meet the specifications?

Is it rational to think that an SME would invest the time and money to submit a bid if it weren’t able to fulfill it? That line of reasoning is totally obsolete in 2025.

On top of all that, women lack access to investor networks and are under-represented on decision-making committees. The data speak for themselves. According to the 2024 report from the Women Entrepreneurship Knowledge Hub, women-owned businesses receive only 4% of venture capital funding in Canada.

Despite extensive efforts to inform small to medium-sized enterprises, or SMEs, why did the results still fall short? We know that the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises, the Business Development Bank of Canada and numerous regional organizations have invested heavily in training sessions and informational events. And yet, accessing public procurement remains a daunting challenge for most SMEs.

If the information is readily available and widely shared, then the issue isn’t communication; it’s the bidding process itself that needs a complete overhaul.

Here are a few examples of meaningful levers that could trigger real positive change.

I decided to compare two government procurement platforms. The American platform, GSA Advantage, centralizes information and allows federal agencies to make purchases from a single source, similar to an online catalogue. The Canadian platform, CanadaBuys, which was launched in 2022, simply posts tender opportunities without providing any direct transactional functionality. The Canadian system creates a lot more red tape for our SMEs.

I am therefore proposing that the federal government require large companies and Crown corporations that obtain public contracts to work with SMEs by setting quotas or reserving a minimum percentage of subcontracting for them.

I also propose including provisions that feature indicators to measure real gains for SMEs and that implement tax or other incentives to actively encourage such partnerships.

The government could also take inspiration from positive examples, such as WEConnect or Aéro Montréal, which are already strengthening supplier networks and support much more inclusive procurement.

Finally, in order for these changes to produce positive results, calls for tenders must place greater emphasis on quality and innovation, rather than using the lowest price as the only criterion. This would allow innovative SMEs to better position themselves. It would also prevent contracts from always going to the same bidders.

Honourable colleagues, Bill C-5 could be a perfect opportunity to turn federal procurement into a true engine of national prosperity. Public contracts represent 13% to 20% of Canada’s GDP. Governments hold a powerful lever to boost the economy nationwide without leaving anyone behind.

We need a new mindset — one that connects economic performance with social responsibility. I call for an economy that wins without exclusion, that grows without forgetting SMEs and that prospers by supporting those who innovate every day, often behind the scenes.

It’s high time that we recognized the people working quietly behind the scenes to keep our economy going. Behind every SME is a face, a story, a desire. We have a responsibility to reach out to them to build prosperity that is both sustainable and shared.

This challenge affects us all. Let’s use Bill C-5 as a true springboard for our SMEs and our communities.

Thank you for listening. Meegwetch.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the second reading of Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act.

I would like to remind senators and those Canadians who are watching our proceedings today of the dire consequences of the negative impacts of resource extraction on First Nations lands and lives as it has occurred relentlessly over the past 60-plus years. Over many years, First Nations have presented solid evidence within various Senate and House of Commons committees of the severe and irreversible harm that resource extractive projects bring to their territories, resources and way of life.

During the last Parliament, testimony by First Nations and other racialized communities who experienced these harms first-hand helped to pass the National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act, which received Royal Assent in June 2024. First Nations have borne and continue to bear the brunt of environmental racism, resulting in their premature morbidity and mortality. This slow violence over these years has amounted to genocide.

Colleagues, remedial measures regarding mitigation by resource extractive companies have not been rigorously applied. The number of orphan wells has doubled to 3,200 as the bankruptcy of Sequoia Resources is now settled. Tailings ponds from oil and gas extraction continue to grow; not one pond has been mitigated.

In the Burrard Inlet, Rueben George of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation testified that the community had to do extensive mitigation around the impacts of extractive activity in their area. After 40 years’ work, they were finally able to harvest clams. However, as they were mitigating the toxins left behind by oil and gas activity, these extractive companies were continuing to destroy other sections of their land at a rate greater than what their mitigation efforts were restoring.

Not only are the resource extractive companies abandoning their responsibilities to mitigate — nor are they being forced to comply with the Polluter Pays Principle and CEPA’s precautionary principle — they have also been given subsidies by the federal government: $29.6 billion in direct subsidies and financing to oil and gas in 2024 and $18.6 billion in 2023.

Over the past five years, financial support to the industry has climbed to $74.6 billion. Who reaps the benefits? Foreign-owned companies and wealthy shareholders do.

Honourable senators, the operating model of these extractive companies is not compatible with the right to a good life — mitho–pimatisiwin — for First Nations.

For the industry, there has always been a fundamental tension between the two competing mandates: the pressure to contribute to the social goal of climate change mitigation, and the need to perform financially and meet obligations to shareholders, owners and provinces through activities that directly contribute to climate change. Of course, the interests of shareholders, owners and provinces have always won.

Evidence shows that large oil companies have lobbied governments against emissions regulations and confounded public discussion around the science of anthropogenic climate change, while continuing to profit from polluting activities. What we demand are changes to the way the oil industry operates so that the industry undertakes to improve the sustainability and social conscience of their operations. The high carbon emissions of the oil industry gives it a deciding role in the success of climate change mitigation.

Honourable senators, prevention is now absolutely critical and the only solution at this time for First Nations. The attempt to mitigate emissions has largely proven to be inadequate. The CBC reported just yesterday in an article entitled “Alberta’s oilsands to hit record production high in 2025” that not only are oil sands operations continuing to grow, but their emissions output also remains on a similar upward trajectory.

Given the uncertainty of the projects to be listed under Schedule 1 of this bill, coupled with the intended setting aside of critical segments of pro-environmental legislation, we cannot argue that Bill C-5 will result in extractive companies increasing their toxic outputs that negatively affect the air, water, land and lives of First Nations.

Colleagues, despite the fact that a healthy environment is essential to human life, health and well-being, resource-extractive projects have continuously impacted the environment in ways that demonstrably harm First Nations. Yet, in 2022, the right to a healthy environment was recognized by the United Nations General Assembly, with 161 countries, including Canada, voting in favour of recognizing this right.

Canada then recognized the right to a healthy environment for the first time at the federal level in 2023 through amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, also known as CEPA. This right is also recognized in different forms in Ontario, Quebec, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

As a result of these federal amendments, the government must develop an implementation framework by June 2025 that will set out details about the scope and fulfilling — at the federal level — the right to a healthy environment. This is not discretionary, yet Prime Minister Carney has seemingly made clear his intent to unilaterally ignore or set aside the government’s legislated responsibility toward the right to a healthy environment.

This represents a new threat by Prime Minister Carney through Schedule 2 of Bill C-5, which would look at erasing vital protections within various federal laws that look after the environment in multiple ways. This includes CEPA, which is the only act that addresses the right to a healthy environment in Canada.

I have heard that Bill C-5 is for the greater good. Here is a quote from Jakub Bożydar Wiśniewski, a fellow of the Mises Institute:

“For the greater good”: the phrase that always precedes the greatest evil.

As First Nations, we have been sacrificed for the greater good all our lives.

Colleagues, I maintain that there is no need for this bill, as resource-extractive industries have already been granted the power to continue to do catastrophic harm, to pollute and to destroy, despite existing federal and provincial legislation.

As we will hear, the notion of economy-environment trade-offs is a smoking gun. In the book entitled The Right to a Healthy Environment: Revitalizing Canada’s Constitution, author David R. Boyd states:

. . . a huge pile of studies proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Canada lags behind other nations in terms of environmental performance. . . . The conservative Conference Board of Canada . . . [stated the] Scandinavian nations [Sweden, Finland and Norway] also outstrip Canada in terms of economic competitiveness and innovation, debunking the myth that there is a trade-off between strong environmental protection and economic prosperity.

The author goes on to say:

A collaborative research project involving Yale University, Columbia University, and the World Economic Forum ranked forty-five nations ahead of Canada in environmental performance. Nine of the countries ranked in the World Economic Forum’s top fifteen for environmental performance are also in the top fifteen for global competitiveness, again undermining the notion of economy-environment trade-offs.

During a year-end interview in 2006, Prime Minister Harper acknowledged, “Canada’s environmental performance is, by most measures, the worst in the developed world. We’ve got big problems.”

In 1969, Prime Minister Trudeau said:

This challenge of pollution of our rivers and lakes, of our farmlands and forests, and of the very air we breathe, cannot be met effectively in our federal state without some constitutional reforms or clarification.

In 1978, the Canadian Environmental Law Association concluded that the Constitution’s silence:

. . . led to jurisdictional buck-passing between the federal and provincial governments, failure to pass needed laws, erratic and haphazard enforcement of existing legislation and pollution havens.

In 1984, J.P.S. MacLaren argued, “. . . the spectre of constitutional challenge prevented Ottawa from effectively implementing or enforcing environmental laws.”

In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that the environment:

. . . is a constitutionally abstruse matter which does not comfortably fit within the existing division of powers without considerable overlap and uncertainty.

Here is another quote:

Another major problem caused by constitutional uncertainty is that corporations often challenge Canadian environmental laws — both provincial and federal — as being beyond the jurisdiction of the government that passed them. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a Manitoba law that imposed liability upon industrial polluters whose mercury discharges harmed fisheries.

In the 1990s, Ottawa came within a hair’s breadth of losing its ability to regulate toxic pollution because of a constitutional challenge. The case arose when Hydro-Quebec was charged with dumping PCBs into the Saint-Maurice River in violation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA.

Hydro-Quebec’s defence to the charge of dumping PCBs was that CEPA was unconstitutional, that the federal government lacked the requisite authority to regulate toxic substances. According to Hydro-Quebec, pollution was a local matter falling within the provincial government’s exclusive jurisdiction.

As three levels of Quebec courts sided with the polluter, the issue eventually went to the Supreme Court. In the absence of a clear constitutional mandate for federal environmental law, lawyers defending CEPA did the best they could with a handful of poor options: (a) the trade and commerce power of the federal government; (b) its criminal law power; and (c) Parliament’s residual jurisdiction under the vague “peace, order and good government” power to legislate respecting matters of national concern, as provided for in the introductory paragraph of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

By the narrowest possible margin — five to four — five Supreme Court judges upheld CEPA’s constitutionality. To do so, however, required some judicial creativity, as they relied on the federal government’s criminal law power. Because of the Constitution’s silence regarding environmental protection, the courts and Ottawa are forced to perform jurisdictional gymnastics to validate —

Senator McCallum, your time has expired. Are you asking for more time?

Yes.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Canada’s constitutional gap is also used to delay, block or water down proposed environmental legislation and regulations. A classic example is the federal endangered species legislation.

In 2012 it became clear that the Conservative government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper was exploiting a very narrow perspective of constitutional jurisdiction in order to emasculate the federal government in terms of its role in protecting Canada’s environment.

I ask colleagues: Is this Liberal government going down that same path of emasculating the federal government in terms of its role in environmental stewardship?

I will leave you with that thought for today and look forward to continuing my remarks at third reading debate tomorrow.

Kinanâskomitinâwâw.

Honourable senators, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. Forgive me, I’m usually using paper, but I will use my computer tonight.

I have written remarks regarding the labour mobility portion of Bill C-5, but tonight I would like to address the substantive issues requiring consideration: Part 2 of Bill C-5, which pertains to nation building. The preamble states, “ . . . urgently advance projects throughout Canada, including in the North . . . .”

Why was the North singled out, and what constitutes the North? It may be that the legislative drafts people were requested to include this phrase to signal the government’s attention and focus on Canada’s Arctic — also undefined. If, as is often the case, the intention is to refer to the three northern territories, I find the phrase deeply troubling.

Inhabitants of any of Canada’s 10 provinces and Canada’s Indigenous people are recognized by the Constitution. The Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut were established through acts of Parliament. Parliament can change those acts. The three acts are not listed in the schedule and therefore could be subject under this act to changes by the Governor-in-Council under this legislation.

Some might say quite patronizingly or perhaps in a typical colonial fashion, “Don’t worry.”

There are those of us who recall in 1985 the First Ministers’ Meetings when the Premier of Ontario was less than welcoming to the duly elected leader of the Government of the Yukon Tony Penikett. My first act upon my election in 2000 was to officially sign the Ta’an Kwäch’än land claim agreement. The signature line for the Yukon prepared by Ottawa read, “government leader.”

The first question from the media upon my election was, “Will you use the title premier?” to which I replied, “Yes.” It took a long time for Ottawa to change the parlance. My colleagues at the first ministers’ table were far more generous and accepting in their use of the term. That was only 25 years ago. The Nunavut Act passed in 1999.

The recognition of the territories within Canada’s confederation family is in its infancy. Be mindful of the youngest and shoulder your responsibility seriously as parliamentarians. The world is watching, and they all want what you have.

Please note that it’s not my intention to engender constitutional debate, nor do I intend to introduce an amendment to add to the schedule of the act. I have too much respect for the elected members of the provinces and of the other place, as well as the First Nations and Inuit to do that, prolonging this debate. I’m asking you to offer your respect to the three territories and to be mindful of the responsibility you bear in this chamber and in the other place for these three acts of Parliament that constitute their place in Confederation.

There’s an expression that those who don’t know their history are destined to repeat it. There’s also the old adage that one can and must learn from our history in order to ensure that we don’t repeat mistakes of the past.

Part 7, consultation, makes this especially evident. As evident during the Committee of the Whole, in my questions, the minister’s consultation is ill-defined, not well appreciated by all governments, nor is there an agreed-upon definition of those who should be consulted.

Allow me to share the Yukon’s experience.

In 1942, with a perceived threat from Japan, including an attack on the Aleutian Islands off Alaska, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built the Alaska Highway from Dawson Creek in British Columbia to Fairbanks, Alaska. Most of that is in the Yukon. The Canadian government’s contribution was to provide the right-of-way.

Department of Public Works assumed responsibility, and the Americans continued to fund the upkeep of that highway through Canada, giving money to the Yukon government right up until the 2000s. The CANOL pipeline, also part of the war effort, was constructed from Norman Wells in the Northwest Territories to a refinery in Whitehorse. The refinery was closed, and the remains of the vehicles involved in the construction were left rusting on the side of the road. What was the Canadian contribution to this American project? Not so much. Again, the land. A pipeline was constructed from Haines Alaska through Haines Junction in the Yukon and on the Alaska Highway through the Yukon to Fairbanks, Alaska.

Senators, you may have heard of a toxic substance used as a defoliant used in the Vietnam War by the Americans: Tordon 101. There is a record of the use of Tordon and defoliants by the Americans on Canadian soil over that pipeline. A specific claim is still being discussed with the Yukon Champagne Aishihik First Nations and the Government of Canada. The Specific Claims West of the former Department of Indian Affairs is where I’m told this outstanding and unresolved claim in the archival information resides.

These were three American projects on Canadian soil — largely in the Yukon — with significant environmental and social impacts, and, aside from the infrastructure of the Alaska Highway, there was little or no lasting economic benefit to Canada or Canadians.

Elijah Smith, father and author of Together Today for our Children Tomorrow, consulted with all Yukon First Nations in developing that document, which became the foundation of the land claims. The consultations and that document were the foundation of the Umbrella Final Agreement.

The Umbrella Final Agreement has a chapter that requires the Yukon to do a development assessment. The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, or YESAA, is a made-in-the-Yukon law designed to meet the needs of Yukon First Nations and other Yukoners. It is unlike any other assessment legislation throughout Canada. YESAA established the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board, an independent arm’s-length body responsible for carrying out environmental and socio-economic assessments.

The seven-person board is appointed by Canada based on nominations from the Council of Yukon First Nations as well as the Yukon government and Canadian government. The board work is governed by the legislation. As noted, it is signed and developed by the Government of Canada, the Yukon government and Yukon First Nations.

The Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board can recommend that a project proceed, proceed with conditions, cannot proceed or be referenced to a higher level of assessment if necessary, including to a federal panel. These decision makers are the Yukon government, Yukon First Nations and the Government of Canada. Public involvement in the process is not only welcomed, but also encouraged.

Colleagues, the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board was established in 2003. The act came into full effect in 2005. It’s far from perfect. It’s a work-in-progress, just like an independent Senate is a work-in-progress. It’s taking time. Not everybody is happy with the outcome, but we’re working on it together.

I share the story of this challenging and difficult work with you for several reasons. It includes the historical impact within one part of Canada of living so close to our American neighbours, as well as Canada’s lack of regard in the past for First Nations and our failure to assert economic and social sovereignty in the Yukon specifically. We must learn from the Yukon story to ensure that in the future, specifically through Bill C-5, we don’t repeat mistakes of the past. History provides lessons in the development of assessment legislation that is the envy of others. We are a Yukon that leads with our Yukon First Nations.

There’s also an expression about the devil being in the details. The details will be in the implementation of Bill C-5. How Bill C-5 will work with existing legislation is not clear yet. Others have noted that a project declared to be in the national interest might have preferred status over an environmental review. I see this differently. I see it as an opportunity for Canada to share, to build our country and to include the North.

The key factor with all the projects will be investors. Beyond government, there’s an opportunity for First Nations to invest, to come together and to finance, for example, the transmission line that’s being discussed. Finally, British Columbia has recognized our need and agreed that, perhaps, a transmission line could be extended. We need to share as Canadians, and we need to build our country. I believe we need to build it together.

I see a window of opportunity in Bill C-5 not only for the Yukon and for Yukon First Nations but for all of Canada. I appreciate the comments that have been made, but I also urge my colleagues to recognize that there are places in this country where we’ve made progress, where we’ve worked together and where we’ve developed and created a society that is trying to build our country for all of us. Thank you.