Moved third reading of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act.

He said: Honourable senators, if I sound like a broken record today, it’s not because your hearing has gone bad, but because I might be repeating some of the things I said yesterday. It is important in the context of this debate as we get to the end to consider the bill. I will remind you again that the men and women who built this great country of ours are watching very closely the actions we will take with regard to this piece of important legislation.

Honourable senators, I rise today as the sponsor of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act.

Colleagues, it comes as no surprise that a bill as consequential as Bill C-5 has received so much attention — as it should. Canadians are very passionate about the prosperity and future of our country. It is our role to integrate that passion into the work we do in this important place.

I’m proud to say that I believe we have done so. That work is reflected in the amendments passed in the other place and the clarifications we have received from the minister responsible.

For many Canadians, this year has been characterized by uncertainty and fear. The decision by the United States to launch an unjustified trade war against us has focused our government on tackling the dual challenges of removing trade barriers and promoting nation-building projects at an unprecedented speed.

Bill C-5 is an important step in the process. This legislation is about unlocking the possibilities of what Canada has to offer ourselves and the world. It is about strengthening our domestic economy by modernizing the way we move goods and services and people within Canada. It’s about completing nation-building projects and, most importantly, doing so in a way that benefits all Canadians from coast to coast.

Bill C-5 consists of two important parts: The first part, the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act, is designed to eliminate outdated barriers that prevent Canadians from working where they are most needed, doing business with each other and building a truly unified national economy.

The second part makes it easier to build the nation-building projects Canada needs, such as railways, airports, ports, pipelines and so on. It focuses on the projects with the highest likelihood of successful execution and makes it easier to get them built without sacrificing our obligations to the environment and to Indigenous peoples whose land we share.

The challenges we face with respect to interprovincial trade and labour mobility are significant. Internal trade accounts for nearly a fifth of the entire Canadian economy. That’s about $530 billion in goods and services. This covers millions of workers, entrepreneurs and local employers, who are being short-changed by our history of inaction on a complex web of duplicative rules, regulatory mismatches and administrative dead ends. We have the potential to unlock a $200-billion addition to our GDP if the efforts to take down interprovincial trade barriers — of which Bill C-5 is a key component — prove successful.

These barriers are not new and, as I mentioned at second reading, served a historical purpose to the premiers who installed them. In 2017, the federal government and all 13 provinces and territories signed the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, or CFTA, with the best of intentions to address this problem and take the walls down. Unfortunately, with more than 100 pages of carve‑outs attached to CFTA, these walls remained mostly intact.

That is precisely why I am so encouraged by the first ministers’ meeting that took place earlier this month in Saskatoon. Liberal, Conservative and NDP premiers gathered with a common goal: to strengthen and unify the Canadian economy without hindering the intention of these efforts. The result was that the premiers directed their ministers to finalize a comprehensive Mutual Recognition Agreement by December of this year, and they agreed on a 30-day standard for pan-Canadian credential recognition and a rapid expansion of mutual recognition in the trucking sector. Provinces are all in: Nova Scotia, B.C., New Brunswick, P.E.I., Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec have enacted legislation to mutually recognize goods and accelerate labour mobility with reciprocating jurisdictions.

The Government of Canada is doing its part, too. It has removed nearly 70% of its exceptions under the Canada Free Trade Agreement since 2017, and introduced this bill to get the ball rolling on removing what barriers can be dealt with at the federal level. This effort to knock down interprovincial trade barriers requires coordinated federal leadership to unify the efforts of the provinces and transform our fragmented provincial and territorial economies into one seamless national economy through collaboration and respect for all jurisdictions involved.

Colleagues, let me be clear: Bill C-5 does not erode provincial authority; it respects it. It offers a renewed model of federal engagement, one rooted in partnership and mutual recognition, designed to streamline the system and make the country work more efficiently for everyone.

This legislation offers a framework by which the federal government will recognize provincial and territorial credentials without imposing additional requirements. Practically, this will impact only a small number of professions as there are not a lot of areas of overlap in this space. However, it does provide a model that could be used by our provincial and territorial partners as they work to implement the first ministers’ commitment to get to a 30-day service standard for credential recognition.

Bill C-5 will take concrete steps to make Canada’s internal market more seamless and unified. It will establish a framework for the mutual recognition of goods and services, ensuring that if a product meets the standard in one province — and that standard is comparable — it will be accepted at the federal level. This reduces duplication, cuts red tape and opens doors for businesses across the country. This means stronger businesses, lower costs for consumers, higher wages for workers and an economy that fully punches above its full weight.

The objectives of Part 1 of this bill go hand in hand with those of Part 2, the “Building Canada Act.” At its core, the second part of this bill is focused on getting projects of national interest off the ground more efficiently than in the past — which takes over five years — while maintaining the highest standards of transparency, accountability and respect for the environment and for the Indigenous peoples whose lands we share.

The “Building Canada Act” portion of the bill sets out five criteria that the Governor-in-Council may consider to determine whether a project is in the national interest: whether it strengthens Canada’s economy, resilience and security; provides economic or other benefits for Canadians; has a high practical likelihood of getting built; advances the interests of Indigenous peoples; and contributes to clean growth and Canada’s climate change objectives.

The “Building Canada Act” focuses on how we must build with speed and efficiency without sacrificing environmental standards and ongoing meaningful consultation with Indigenous peoples. Nation-building projects will proceed only after Indigenous voices are heard in the spirit of true nation-to-nation partnership. The section 35 rights of Indigenous peoples are constitutionally required and respected in the framework of this legislation.

While this bill, in my view, accomplishes many good things, it is also important to explain what it does not do. Bill C-5 in no way supplants the jurisdiction of provinces as masters of their own domain. Rather, it gets the federal government out of the way when its requirements are redundant. Nor does Bill C-5 eradicate environmental oversight and regulatory integrity, as has been suggested at various points. The nation-building projects ascribed in the “Building Canada Act” will continue to be subject to robust environmental reviews and grounded in the best science and local input. They will not be built at the expense of the lands, waters and air in which we take so much pride.

For most of this year, Canadians have been asking themselves, “What now? What do we do when the world as we know it is turned on its head?” Canadians are looking to their leaders, and we must deliver. While I don’t have all the answers, I have one important one: we build a better Canada. We make it easier to build the kinds of projects that lead to good jobs, good paycheques and hope for the future that Canadians deserve while making sure we don’t sacrifice the core values that make us Canadian, like respect for the environment and honouring the Indigenous peoples whose lands we share across this great country.

In a time when so many Canadians are stressed and anxious about what the future holds, I believe Bill C-5 provides a much-needed reassurance that this government is serious about ensuring continued prosperity for all Canadians, whether you work on the oil rigs or in the mines; whether you are a fisher; whether you work in an automotive or steel plant; whether you are on the shop floor — this bill is about creating hope for our collective future.

Senators, we hold the future of our communities in our hands. Generations before us built the roads, railways, ports, industries and legal frameworks that have carried us this far. This bill provides a pathway to self-sustaining Canadian economic prosperity to enable us to build a future that helps every Canadian sleep better at night.

As I went to bed last night, I thought about the truck driver who got into his rig at midnight to drive 16 hours from one part of the country to another to deliver freight for us as Canadians, not knowing full well if his or her life will be better if we pass this bill. Think of the auto workers laid off in Ontario through no fault of their own as a result of the imposition of tariffs by the United States. Think of the steelworkers whose plants have been shuttered because of a 25% tariff imposed on their industry or the aluminum worker who can no longer go to work because their plant is idle. Consider the steel plants in Hamilton that have just been shuttered because they are no longer needed because they can’t ship their products to the United States.

I could go on at length about the men and women who have been impacted by the trade actions of our closest friend and ally. But as they say crying over spilled milk will not solve our problems. This bill is about recapturing what is possible for us to make this country a better place. It is for the millions of workers who cast their votes in the last election with the hope we can do better. This bill is about meeting that commitment. They sent their elected representatives to Parliament, hoping they will do better on their behalf.

Colleagues, I want to thank each one of you for the work we have done at Committee of the Whole in this place. Your work has made this bill better. I also want to thank the witnesses who took the time to come speak to us and testify about their perspectives. Their input was tremendously valuable in shaping the bill we now have before us because our colleagues in the other place made a number of amendments that improved the bill in significant ways.

Honourable senators, I ask you to join me in supporting Bill C-5. This bill has the support of every single premier across the country and was passed resoundingly by the elected chamber on the mandate of an overwhelming majority of Canadians. In this chamber, we have the opportunity to create stronger, more united and more prosperous Canada. It’s in your hands. I ask you to support this bill. Thank you very much.

Senator Yussuff, would you take a question?

Yes.

Thank you for your heartfelt speech, Senator Yussuff.

I have a technical question for you. I mentioned it yesterday in my speech. It concerns the amendment affecting Quebec.

The amendment states that Quebec’s written consent will be obtained when a national project falls within areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction; the amendment is very clear about this. That said, what happens if the project in question involves areas of shared jurisdiction, such as the environment? We know that the federal government and Quebec share jurisdiction in a number of areas. If that happens, will the federal government move forward or will it ask for written consent?

Thank you very much. I think it goes without saying that provincial jurisdiction is paramount to the approval of any federal projects in this country. It is clear from the premiers’ deliberations that they want to build national projects without sacrificing provincial jurisdiction by that effort. Specifically in Quebec, that has not been clarified. However, with regard to environmental regulations in Quebec and the federal government, both governments will have to work to come to an agreement as to how those projects will proceed, recognizing that each jurisdiction has different standards.

In the context of moving forward with this project, it doesn’t compromise jurisdiction, but it also makes sure they are working in collaboration with each other. There is a recognition that unless those projects have some level of certainty of moving forward, the federal government will not proceed with them because they are going to be stymied in the courts as a result of legal wrangling between the province and the federal government.

You aren’t specifically answering my question, so I assume that you believe all of this will be decided during negotiations.

I’d like to know this: It has been said that this will happen automatically, but isn’t it in the bill? When the Quebec government asks to do an assessment of a project, will the federal government’s assessment be added to the process? That could prolong the timeline. We know Quebec’s environmental assessment is very thorough, so will that be considered sufficient for a project to move forward?

Thank you again for the question. I don’t want to give you the wrong answer, but I believe that where jurisdictions overlap in regard to an environmental assessment, the federal government and the province will have to come to an understanding as to which jurisdiction and which regulation will govern that project assessment.

Senator Yussuff, I want to thank you sincerely for your leadership and your work on Bill C-5. It is a very important piece of legislation and one that’s controversial.

As I do most mornings, I tuned into CBC Halifax morning radio with Portia Clark. Yes, Edmonton used to have her, but we have her back. My MP, Jaime Battiste, was being interviewed on the issue of Bill C-5 and some of the controversy, particularly around Indigenous rights holders. He emphasized in that interview that Bill C-5 is an enabling framework legislation and that section 35 and UNDRIP have to be — and will be — honoured and respected. He spoke about the upcoming consultations this summer with Indigenous rights holders and environmental groups.

Senator Yussuff, you know me: I’m always excited about opportunities to improve the prosperity of Canadians and about issues that can cut unnecessary red tape and — as you said — build a better Canada and build hope for Canadians all across the country. I’m curious, though, whether you would now be able to give us a sense, specifically, of what this summer is going to look like. Let’s say we pass this bill — and we likely will in this chamber here today — with the consultations coming up with Indigenous rights holders, what will that look like? Do you have any details on that for this chamber? Also, what about consultations with environmental groups?

Thank you for the question. It is my hope that with the Prime Minister meeting with rights holders and Indigenous leaders across the country — as has been committed to — the Prime Minister would hear, eloquently and clearly, that it is fundamental for Canada to ensure that the rights enshrined in our Constitution and in the legal framework of UNDRIP are respected.

Each community will have a different approach. We are not a monolithic country, nor are our Indigenous people. But the expectation — I hope — is that the Prime Minister would learn much in listening and understanding what is expected of him and his government as we move forward in building national projects.

If we fail in that effort, it would be a travesty for the efforts we have made so far in the reconciliation with our Indigenous communities across this country. As our new Prime Minister, I hope he learns a lot from the people with whom he is meeting, also learning about their expectations of us as Canadians and how we interact with them, if we are to build, expand and grow this country. That is because they equally want to ensure that the success of this country reaches their community. The resources in their communities are going to be exploited. Do they benefit from that if they choose to give their support?

I am hoping that, as the summer continues, the Prime Minister will learn many things and inform us about what we must do to ensure we get this right. It is important for him to hear these voices, obviously, as the new Prime Minister of our country and to fundamentally understand how these communities view the protection of their rights as we embark on this new journey to help make this country an even better place for all of us — not just some of us.

Thank you very much, Senator Yussuff. I didn’t hear anything about meeting with environmental groups. I understood from my member of Parliament that this would also happen. So that’s a holdover from my last question.

Secondly, one of the issues that many senators are having — as you know, we are all talking to each other — is that we are being asked to take a fairly large leap of faith here. It’s a very short time frame. We are not able to really delve into this legislation in the way we normally would. I agree that we had a very successful Committee of the Whole process, but it has been rushed. It involves taking a leap of faith. We are dealing with what I call “trust me” legislation here.

I’m curious about this: In addition to hearing about consultation with environmental groups over the summer, have you discussed with the government this issue of concern that we are having here as senators about us being able to fulfill our roles in the way we like to fulfill them? What can we learn from this for the future so that we are able to work hand-in-hand — when necessary and in the ways we want to — with the government to pass the best possible legislation for Canadians?

Thank you again. I have been here for four years in this place. Despite being here for that short time, I have learned much about the men and women with whom I work. Some days I think I know a lot, and some days I think I don’t know anything. To a large extent, we all have different ways of viewing what we do here.

Every time we deal with legislation at the end of a session, we in this chamber worry that we’ve been rushed. I’m not like most of you; I used to negotiate collective agreements with the clock running towards midnight, so I know the urgency to figure out what one needs to do before midnight. I’ve been very fortunate that midnight was not midnight many times, even though I needed to see the clock.

In the context of us having to pass this piece of legislation, as important as it is, it’s always a reminder to the people who care about this great country to have trust in one another.

I come to work every day having trust in my fellow senators. Even though I may not want to go for a drink with you all the time, for the most part, I would trust you with my life because I believe we are well-intentioned people who want to do the right thing. Yes, there is a degree of trust in this bill, but that trust is being reinforced by the amendments made in the other place to improve the bill where possible.

Could more be done? More could always be done, but I believe, in the context of doing our work, we also have to reflect in this moment on whether we are doing the best job possible in passing this legislation. I can say sincerely that I think we are.

Certainly.

Thank you for the question. Our colleagues in the other place reflected on that section of the bill and made amendments to ensure parliamentary oversight of the laws we have passed to protect the environment, species at risk and other relevant regulations and legislation, so that no minister will have the authority to simply override that without Parliament having oversight. It’s fundamental for us to recognize that what our colleagues did in the other place strengthens the bill in a significant way, as was pointed out by others. Maybe some parts of the bill needed to be rectified. Our colleagues in the other place did so.

Again, thank you for the question.

It is without doubt that section 35 has been reinforced in the legislation and clarified again with amendments made in the other place. This is fundamental with regard to how we interact with Indigenous communities in this country. I don’t think there is any attempt by this bill to change our path with regard to reconciliation. This bill is recognizing that. Also, the Prime Minister has committed that he will personally meet with communities across this country, to hear from them, to consult with them and to ensure that we as a country do not stray from the path we are on as we continue to build a more unified nation while recognizing what we can learn from the past.

I believe this bill has those fundamental underpinnings already written into the legislation, which were clarified by our colleagues in the other place with their amendments. The Prime Minister is going to meet with Indigenous leaders across the country. I hope that will reinforce again the things we may have missed. We will learn more about that as he engages with communities across the country.

Samuel Johnson, the towering intellect of the 18th century, said the rudest thing a person could ever do is quote something someone once said to use it against them. Unfortunately, politics has a way of dismissing that credo. But we have the same ministers over in the other place with slightly different portfolios, who all eagerly stood for Bill C-69 and who are now cheering for Bill C-5. I’m going to vote for Bill C-5. We need it. It is a very important bill, and we have to get it through. Unfortunately, I don’t know if their lack of foresight with Bill C-69 caused the very crisis they are now trying to mitigate and whether we can have any faith in them. I am wondering why we should have faith in them, senator, and that things are going to improve.

Thank you again for the question. I assume that’s a question.

I was not part of the Bill C-69 deliberations; I was not here. But Bill C-5 is a recognition that we need to do a much better job in how we build national projects. Based on the record in front of us, it takes far too long. I’m certain, as we embark on this passage of Bill C-5, the government will have to think about whether other legislation might be impacted. I’m not aware of that. Certainly, that point has not been made, although it has been suggested in this chamber. I’m sure the government is aware of Bill C-69 and how Bill C-5 might interact with that piece of legislation.

Are there any contradictions? I don’t know, but if there are, I am sure we’ll be debating them in this chamber should the government bring forth amendments or changes to any other legislation that we would have to consider. So, Senator Richards, I’m hoping this bill will receive support, but, equally, with regard to how it interacts with other legislation, I am not here to answer those questions. I don’t necessarily know. I have no analysis before me to provide you with clear answers.

Honourable senators, I would like to start by recognizing that I am speaking from the traditional, unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. In doing so, I want to acknowledge our collective responsibility to not only honour the past and present contributions of the original inhabitants of this land but also to protect and uphold their rights. These outcomes can only be achieved through genuine commitment and meaningful action, and that is something we should remember as we deliberate.

Today, I rise to speak to third reading of Bill C-5, officially titled as the one Canadian economy act, which combines two different measures.

Part 1 is the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act. It seeks to remove federal barriers to the movement of goods, services and labour.

Part 2, the building Canada act, seeks to streamline the approval and construction of major projects that the federal cabinet declares to be in the national interest.

Before I turn to the substance and implications of Part 1 and Part 2, I want to comment on the process used to develop and, soon, implement this bill.

Tabled on June 6 by the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy, the bill was reviewed and amended by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities over two days, approximately 12 hours in total, before being further amended, debated and ultimately passed in the House of Commons the next day, June 20.

While the bill was still before the other place, the Senate authorized a Committee of the Whole to study the subject matter of Bill C-5 over three consecutive days, totalling around eight hours. This chamber further agreed to hold a final vote no later than Friday, June 27.

Now, with the House of Commons adjourned until September 15 and the convention of deferring to its wishes, it seems to be almost a foregone conclusion that this chamber will also rush to adopt this bill. We are driving full speed ahead, seemingly without brakes, towards an arbitrary July 1 deadline set by the Prime Minister.

Why are we rushing on such a consequential bill that deserves care and attention? We had the option to slow down. That was the message delivered clearly by National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak last week. She asked us to take the time to do things properly and reminded us that is how we build a better country: by listening, working together and not rushing reconciliation.

Colleagues, the use of such a rushed process on a sweeping and potentially dangerous bill is concerning. I certainly have not experienced anything like it since being appointed. At the very least, we should be deeply concerned that our collective agreement, even if only tacit, to proceed in this manner risks undermining public trust in our institution.

We were all appointed to this chamber to carefully and deliberately review legislation passed in the other place. Our role is to focus on the long-term interests of our regions and our country and, moreover, to give a voice to under-represented groups like Indigenous peoples.

In this moment, I cannot help but ask myself whether we have truly lived up to these responsibilities, not just in principle, but in practice. The speed at which we are moving on Bill C-5 gives the impression that we are here merely as a rubber stamp for the federal government rather than to meaningfully scrutinize and, if necessary, amend their proposals. When we fail to adequately fulfill our duty to provide sober second thought, we become responsible for any unintended but foreseeable consequences that may occur.

These are not things any of us want to hear, and I wish I did not have to say them. However, it would be wrong to ignore the criticisms aimed at us for our actions — or, rather, inaction — with respect to this bill. All of us here as well as the broader public were denied the time to carefully and thoroughly examine both its substance and impact.

Last week, National Chief Woodhouse Nepinak told this chamber that the Assembly of First Nations was given seven days to provide feedback on an outline of the bill that did not include the actual provisions. Meanwhile, many communities were grappling with the impact of wildfires and other crises made worse by ongoing federal indifference and neglect. Similarly, President Natan Obed told us that Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, was given a short deadline.

It is utterly unacceptable for Canada to expect Indigenous peoples, who often face capacity and resource challenges, to properly review and assess the impacts of legislation when they have not been given adequate time or opportunity to understand it beforehand.

Indigenous peoples, who are supposed to be respected as equal partners in nation-to-nation relationships, have been completely sidelined on a matter that could profoundly affect their collective rights. In contrast, Prime Minister Mark Carney and the federal cabinet met with premiers as early as May to discuss the proposal to expedite nation-building projects within Canada.

We would not be where we are today if Indigenous peoples were given an equal opportunity to participate in the development and drafting of the one Canadian economy act.

Colleagues, the Prime Minister and his government have repeatedly argued that voters, including Indigenous peoples, gave them a democratic mandate to act and to respond with urgency to a crisis provoked by the United States, including the power to give themselves sweeping and unprecedented powers at a breakneck speed.

Even if we were to accept the questionable premise that such a democratic mandate exists, isn’t it risky and rash to give such broad discretion to the executive without taking the time to fully understand the consequences?

Jocelyn Stacey, law professor at the University of British Columbia, wrote in a recent opinion piece:

We may well be experiencing a world engulfed in crisis, but we should not allow our legislators to forfeit legal procedures and safeguards.

I could not agree more.

The economic pressures from the U.S. do not justify an urgent power grab that erodes legal safeguards for communities and the environment under the guise of speed and necessity. That is not to say that many workers and businesses are not being hit hard. They need our support. However, it is misleading to frame the passage of this legislation as the necessary response to an urgent crisis.

We cannot sacrifice vital safeguards and genuine partnerships in favour of political and corporate interests. We risk setting a dangerous precedent when we allow the government to disregard parliamentary and public oversight with such ease.

Beyond the problems created by rushing through the parliamentary process, I want to turn my attention now to the actual substance and impact of Bill C-5.

First, I will explain why I support Part 1, the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act, notwithstanding some reservations. And last, but perhaps most importantly, I will outline why I cannot, in good conscience, support Part 2, the building Canada act.

Colleagues, Part 1 of Bill C-5, also known as the one Canadian economy act, seeks to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act.

To reduce longstanding barriers to trade and labour mobility across Canada, the bill proposes to create a framework of mutual recognition in which a good, service or worker that meets the requirements of one province or territory would be recognized as meeting federal standards, with some caveats around what qualifies as comparable. In specific, the provincial or territorial requirement must address the same element or aspect, or serve a similar purpose, as the corresponding federal requirement.

Currently, inconsistent requirements across provinces and territories create barriers that prevent workers from pursuing their trades or professions; businesses from transporting and selling goods and services; and customers from purchasing freely across Canada. The free trade and labour mobility in Canada act could, among other things, help streamline licensing and safety compliance requirements for truck drivers, which would help ease labour shortages, reduce costs and improve deliveries across Canada. Similarly, it could remove duplicate regulatory requirements, such as safety audits, to cut costs and boost competitiveness for trucking companies.

Due to the ongoing impact of the unjustified tariffs imposed by the U.S. on certain goods imported from Canada, particularly in the automobile, aluminum and steel sectors, there have been growing calls for all levels of government to support affected workers and industries.

The framework of mutual recognition has been promoted as a potential solution. In fact, the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act builds on similar provincial legislation.

Prince Edward Island, for example, passed Bill No. 15, the Interprovincial Trade and Mobility Act, on May 16 to remove trade and labour restrictions in partnership with reciprocating jurisdictions.

According to Premier Rob Lantz, this bill reflects the overall commitment of our province to be part of Team Canada. He said it opens the door to work closely with other jurisdictions to create a national economy instead of 13 separate ones.

As far as I am aware, Prince Edward Island has already signed agreements with Nova Scotia and Ontario, with, no doubt, more to come in the future.

The impact of the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act could be significant.

Last year, the Public Policy Forum released a paper arguing that, by virtue of being smaller and more dependent on internal trade than other parts of Canada, Atlantic Canada would see an outsized benefit from eliminating internal trade barriers.

Prince Edward Island, in particular, could see a 16.2% increase in GDP. The Public Policy Forum also cited findings from 2021 by professors Trevor Tombe and Jennifer Winter from the University of Calgary, which found that a modest 10% reduction in interprovincial trade barriers within the Maritimes could increase incomes in Prince Edward Island alone by up to 1.8% and employment by as much as 2.6%.

We do not know yet if that kind of growth will come true, but if it does, it could prove to be transformational in such a small province. It is due to these potential economic benefits that I support the objectives of the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act.

That being said, I think we need to be cautious. We have repeatedly heard claims that removing internal barriers to trade could boost Canada’s GDP by up to $200 billion a year. However, these and other numbers may be too good to be true.

That is certainly an argument made by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which maintains that due to the use of problematic assumptions:

. . . claims about internal barriers to trade are vastly overstated and often made at a very high level without specific examples or intuition about how growth would be enhanced by policy changes. . . .

While it is fair to remain hopeful or optimistic about the untapped potential that could be unlocked by the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and similar provincial legislation, I think we need to be honest with ourselves and the broader public.

We also cannot sweep aside the concerns that Part 1 of Bill C-5 could be used to dilute stronger federal requirements in areas like environmental protections and consumer safety, or it could create a patchwork of standards in critical fields like construction and transportation.

As a result, it is extremely important that parliamentarians closely monitor the implementation of the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act as soon as it comes into force. We will need to closely scrutinize how the government wields its broad regulatory authority to guard against a potential race to the bottom if standards designed to protect people and the environment against harm are not progressively lowered.

Just recently, the Canadian Meat Council warned that Bill C-5 could undermine federal health and safety standards by allowing provincial regulations to substitute for federal ones. For example, replacing federal meat inspection rules could threaten red meat exports, as trading partners may lose confidence in our domestic food safety system. The importance of preserving federal regulations in areas where serious health and safety concerns exist cannot be understated.

A significant amount of work will be required to transition to a framework of mutual recognition under the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act. And it is critical that the federal government act responsibly and fairly to avoid causing regulatory confusion or delays and avoid compromising the health and well-being of Canadians.

Colleagues, I now want to turn to Part 2, the building Canada act, which aims to promote economic growth by creating a streamlined approval process to expedite the construction of a small number of major projects chosen to advance the national interests of Canada. Such projects could range from pipelines and mines to railways and other large-scale industrial and infrastructure developments.

To respond to the economic pressures created by the U.S. and other factors, the federal government is seeking to shift the focus of federal reviews away from asking “whether” these projects should proceed to asking “how” to best advance them as quickly as possible. The goal is to provide clearer and more predictable timelines and outcomes for investors.

Under the building Canada act, sweeping and unprecedented powers are granted to the federal cabinet and, in specific, a single minister. The projects declared to be in the national interest will be approved in principle before impact assessments are concluded or consultations begin.

This streamlined approach would reduce federal decision making from five years to two years — a time frame that is no more than a political promise since it is not actually included in the text of the bill. There are no assurances that this process will be shorter or longer than what has been suggested.

Last week, the House of Commons made several amendments to improve the building Canada act, many of which came from the Conservative Party. I want to highlight a few that I think have significantly strengthened the bill to add not only clarity but also the parliamentary and public oversight that was previously missing.

The bill was amended to include a new requirement to create a centralized and accessible public registry for national interest projects that must include a detailed description and rationale, as well as the projected cost, timelines for completion and expected outcomes.

In addition, there is now a requirement for the minister to publicly disclose — within 30 days of issuing an authorization document for a project — detailed information about the conditions, rationale, process and recommendations that informed the decision. And if any recommendations are rejected, the minister must include a justification accompanied by a comparative analysis, a risk assessment of the rejected advice and the mitigation measures proposed.

These measures are further complemented by amendments that expanded the mandate of the parliamentary review committee under the Emergencies Act to review and report back on the exercise of all powers under the building Canada act at least every six months. And there’s a requirement that an annual report of all national interest projects assessing progress, budgets and timelines be tabled in both chambers and published online.

Lastly, there are now some limits on executive discretion. For instance, the federal government is now prohibited from authorizing projects or amending conditions while Parliament is prorogued or dissolved, or after five years after the bill has been passed.

There are also limits on the executive power to override or exempt projects from specific federal statutes, including the Indian Act, which addresses serious concerns raised by the Assembly of First Nations and others.

These and other amendments made by the House of Commons to the building Canada act are an important start. However, there are substantive concerns that have yet to be addressed. The primary one is that the bill grants sweeping and unprecedented executive powers, creating significant potential for abuse.

I want to highlight a few specific examples next. The first issue is how the term “national interest” will be defined. The bill originally outlined a list of discretionary factors that may be considered when deciding whether to designate a project as being in the national interest.

That vague language meant that determinations could be vulnerable to the whims of current or future governments. The House of Commons passed an amendment to require that the federal government define and publish specific criteria for what counts as a “national interest project” within 15 days of the bill becoming law. If this deadline is not met, the minister responsible must explain why and give a timeline for when those criteria will be met. This is a step in the right direction.

But here’s the catch: The federal government still gets to define what this means or how it will be measured. In other words, they still hold the pen on what qualifies — and what does not — as “national interest.”

As a result, there is a chance that the federal government could place economic or other benefits ahead of advancing the interests of Indigenous peoples, action on climate change or any other factor.

I am especially troubled by the prospect of the federal government having final authority on what “national interest projects” are in the interests of Indigenous peoples. The requirement to publicly define binding criteria will provide some predictability, but it may not be enough to prevent the potential abuse of executive discretion.

Yes, the federal government will have to provide clarity on what it means by the interests of Indigenous peoples. However, since we are not a monolith, Indigenous peoples have different and even conflicting interests, especially when it comes to development.

I am also all too aware that the federal government once argued that it was in the “interest” of Indigenous children and families to establish and operate Indian residential schools and Indian day schools — institutions that caused immeasurable and ongoing harm to our people and communities.

This is a sobering reminder of why any mention of the interests of Indigenous peoples in a bill like this must come with a clear requirement: that it is Indigenous peoples — not the government — who define those interests. Anything less risks undermining our voices and rights.

Next, I want to focus on how the building Canada act shows a general disregard for the rights of Indigenous peoples. The building Canada act introduces an expedited approval process that consists of two steps. First, once a project is added to Schedule 1, it is automatically granted all necessary federal approvals, subject to conditions set by a designated minister. Second, project proponents must still submit necessary information to relevant federal departments. There is also a requirement to consult with federal and provincial or territorial counterparts that the designated minister considers relevant, as well as with Indigenous peoples whose rights may be affected by the carrying out of a given project. Rather than multiple ministers issuing separate regulatory decisions under their own authority, decision making is centralized under a single minister who is authorized to issue a document outlining the specific conditions.

Once the document is published, the deeming clause in the building Canada act empowers the federal government to presume that all necessary authorizations are in favour or in support of the project once it has been declared to be in the national interest, which is a major red flag.

The building Canada act was amended in the other place to include a requirement to establish a process for the “. . . active and meaningful participation . . .” of Indigenous peoples, as well as for a report to be published within 60 days after the document is issued. This is a safeguard that did not exist before. However, the bill is still silent on the threshold or standard that must be met for this process to be considered “active” or “meaningful.”

This loose requirement to consult in Bill C-5 applies specifically to Indigenous peoples whose rights may be adversely affected by a project. The word “may” essentially gives the federal cabinet discretion to decide if our rights are impacted, treating their protection as a possibility rather than a certainty. As a result, there is significant lack of clarity around the depth, timing and consequences of consultation. There is also no guarantee that the conditions that projects must meet to proceed will be truly informed by consultation.

If the federal cabinet alone holds the power to decide whether rights are impacted by a project, what exactly stops them from simply saying they aren’t? We do not have the answers. We also cannot guarantee that there will be ongoing dialogue or genuine negotiations to substantially address the concerns of rights holders.

Colleagues, under the building Canada act, Indigenous peoples have no meaningful choice on whether a project proceeds, only maybe — just maybe — in how it proceeds.

The bill mandates the creation of the federal major projects office, which will be responsible for, among other things, consulting with Indigenous peoples. An Indigenous advisory council with First Nations, Inuit and Métis representation will supposedly be part of that office. However, unlike the federal major projects office, this body is not actually mentioned in the text of the bill. Additionally, neither the mandate and structure nor the authority of the federal major projects office and of the Indigenous advisory council are clear.

Will the Indigenous advisory council be able to provide independent guidance and advice or simply rubber-stamp projects? We do not have answers.

How exactly will they be able to ensure that the federal government and others uphold the rights of Indigenous peoples throughout the entire project life cycle? We simply do not know.

Colleagues, it is problematic that the streamlined approach under the building Canada act may reduce the incentive for proponents to engage meaningfully with Indigenous peoples on how to avoid or lessen the impact of a project on their lands or rights. Why would someone negotiate when the outcome is already predetermined?

I am deeply concerned that the building Canada act could have a serious impact on mitigation and accommodation, which are not optional. They are required components of the duty to consult, affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court of Canada. This duty includes not simply listening but also meaningfully addressing concerns raised by Indigenous peoples, including modifying or rejecting projects where the impacts on rights cannot be justified.

We should all be alarmed that the building Canada act may reduce consultation to a token exercise because the ability of Indigenous peoples to refuse or negotiate whether a project should proceed at all is curtailed.

The government says consultation can still happen after a project is designated, but let’s be honest; the decision has basically already been made, regardless of the immediate and cumulative impacts on projects at or near the traditional territories of Indigenous peoples.

As a result, the building Canada act effectively creates a blank cheque for projects that have yet to go through the crucial scientific, technical or safety assessments required under other federal laws to move forward.

In addition to the serious risks associated with the deeming provision, the building Canada act includes the so-called Henry VIII powers. In specific, clauses 21 to 23 empower the executive to selectively exempt projects from federal laws and regulations during the streamlined project approval process. These powers set a dangerous precedent that we need to be cautious about.

On June 18, Anna Johnston of West Coast Environmental Law, told this chamber that such type of executive authority effectively:

. . . turns the principle of informed decision making on its head by allowing cabinet to make major project decisions before doing any environmental reviews. For more than half a century, the way we have made decisions about major projects in Canada has adhered to the basic principle that we should look before we leap. Bill C-5 does away with that principle and, instead, will have cabinet leap into decisions and then ask, “What happens now?”

Ms. Johnston further added:

That “decide now, think later” approach ignores decades of experience and throws the principle of informed decision making out the window. It’s like building a house and then calling an engineer to ask if it’s safe.

The “Henry VIII” powers included in the building Canada act open the door to potential abuses of executive discretion. The reality is that once such a broad discretion exists, it will be sought. These sweeping executive powers are vulnerable to being exploited by industry and other actors, even if ministers say they won’t cave to pressure. The proponents will ask for exemptions because it will allow projects to be built more cheaply and faster.

The building Canada act risks reducing environmental assessments to a mere box-ticking exercise, and Indigenous consultation to an afterthought. And that should make us pause.

During the Committee of the Whole on June 17, Senator Klyne asked Professor Martin Olszynski from the Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary whether he was concerned that Bill C-5 grants the federal government the power to exempt environmental protections, potentially harming people, wildlife and ecosystems. His response laid it out plainly. He said, “If the government doesn’t want to use it, then why would it give it to itself?”

Moreover, Professor Olszynski pointed to Ontario’s Bill 5 and British Columbia’s Bill 15 as “. . . a clear precedent for not going this far.”

Similarly, that same day and in the same panel, Mr. Joshua Ginsberg, Director of Ecojustice, warned us that:

These are not just mere procedural statutes or roadblocks on the way to development; they contain substantive provisions meant to prevent irreversible harm, such as driving species to extinction or polluting air and water in ways that threaten human and ecosystem health. They are not meant to be waved away.

Mr. Ginsberg also added that, like Professor Olszynski, he did not want to:

. . . impart any malice to the government in suggesting that, but I do suggest that in its zeal to ensure important projects proceed quickly, perhaps it has included a little bit too much and proposes to tread on Parliament too much, and that should be scaled back.

Colleagues, we are being told that these sweeping and potentially dangerous powers to respond are justified. But are they? Last week, during Committee of the Whole, Senator Cardozo specifically asked the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, about the rationale used by the federal government to grant itself such sweeping powers.

Her answer was simply that these extraordinary measures are needed to respond to what she characterized as a real national crisis. Are we truly in a crisis that warrants such exceptional and unprecedented measures hastily arranged under the guise of urgency? I frankly disagree with the premise of her answer.

That same day, in this chamber, Minister Freeland urged us to seize the wave of patriotism that has swept our country in recent months and make the decision to trust each other enough to create a single economy from coast to coast to coast. However, given a long history of broken promises and ongoing harms, trust is not something that Canada can expect or demand of Indigenous peoples. Trust is earned. It is not taken. Given that our lands and resources — and even our lives and our futures — are at stake, there are not enough safeguards in this bill for me.

The federal government has maintained that executive powers granted under the building Canada act would still be constrained by constitutional and legal obligations arising from section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Unfortunately, these commitments are not backed up in the bill, and promises mean little when hundreds of court cases are still required to enforce basic consultation.

As former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould put it recently, First Nations are, “ . . . not fooled by the fancy rhetoric . . . .”

Indigenous peoples have learned, through experience, why commitments are not enough when it comes to the federal government. That was something that President Obed said when he was here last week. He reminded us 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 end, whether the building Canada act respects the rights of Indigenous peoples will depend on how seriously the federal government and project proponents choose to uphold their rights in practice. And right now, we are being asked to simply trust that they will. That is not something many of us are willing — or able — to do.

Currently, the building Canada act does not include an explicit requirement to obtain free, prior and informed consent before a project is designated or approved. To be clear: The right to free, prior and informed consent implies the right to say yes or no. That does not mean a veto, but a commitment to genuine, ongoing negotiation with Indigenous peoples as true partners.

Not including free, prior and informed consent is a significant oversight, especially after the House of Commons added an amendment to explicitly require that, before adding the name of a project to Schedule 1, the federal government obtain written consent from a province if a project falls within its area of exclusive jurisdiction.

This is a troubling double standard that calls into question whose jurisdiction and consent truly matter under this legislation and whose continue to be ignored. This bill potentially gives provinces stronger powers than Indigenous peoples to impose conditions or prevent projects from proceeding.

At the moment, the preamble of the building Canada act mentions section 35 of the Constitution Act and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, the duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate — or the principle of free, prior and informed consent — are not operationalized in the bill.

That means these protections are not applied in a binding or practical way. Instead, they are only mentioned in the “whereas” clauses, which are not enforceable. We could have addressed this exclusion had there been enough time to consult with rights holders.

Colleagues, the stakes are high, not just for Canada and Canadians but also for Indigenous peoples and our governments. The building Canada act removes several safeguards that are there to protect us all. And we fear that the burden of rushed and obscure project approvals without full participation or consent will be placed on the shoulders of Indigenous peoples. This is truly disturbing because many of our communities are already struggling with the health, social, economic and cultural impacts of past development, and Bill C-5 could exacerbate those problems.

At the same time, there is no real guarantee that the potential economic benefits linked to the building Canada act will be fairly shared with Indigenous peoples. There is nothing in the bill to ensure there is revenue sharing or shared ownership and governance of the projects built on or near our lands and waters.

There is the Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program, which was recently doubled from $5 billion to $10 billion, to potentially help First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities gain economic stakes in these projects. However, this possibility does not replace the need for free, prior and informed consent for the project itself, nor does it ensure meaningful control or decision-making authority once it is under way. Ultimately, the streamlined process under the building Canada act appears more concerned with political optics and investor timelines than with respecting jurisdiction and consent.

Colleagues, there is more that I could say. However, I want to end with the following: The prosperity of Canada requires that Indigenous peoples have meaningful opportunities to participate in the economy. However, each time we assert our rights and title, we are framed as obstacles or threats. This could not be further from the truth.

After generations of economic marginalization and dependency, Indigenous peoples have a greater stake than most in creating a more just and prosperous country. All we ask is that Canada involves us as full and equal partners from the start.

Now more than ever, Canada needs to be united, not divided. Yet that is exactly what the building Canada act is doing at this current time. The process and subsequent implementation of this bill have fallen short of Canada’s obligations to engage with Indigenous peoples in a meaningful and informed way. The irony is that instead of speeding up projects, the building Canada act may end up slowing them down.

All the federal government has achieved so far is to increase the potential for legal and social conflict. And that will cause more — not further — delays.

Colleagues, in her Globe and Mail column published yesterday, Anishinaabe journalist Tanya Talaga called on the Senate as the chamber of sober second thought to pause this bill and ensure it is redrawn in full partnership with Indigenous nations. She warned us and Canada that failing to do so will erode trust, violate the spirit of treaty relationship and undermine Canada’s constitutional commitments to Indigenous peoples. This is the call to action we must all heed.

In conclusion, colleagues, while Part 1 of the one Canadian economy act — the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act — represents a major shift towards a more integrated and efficient national economy, Part 2 — the building Canada act — betrays the federal government and Canada’s commitment to building a renewed relationship with Indigenous peoples.

It is simple. Reconciliation and prosperity are not opposing goals, but they require respect and partnership. I cannot, in good conscience, support a bill that signals a troubling shift back to a paternalistic and coercive dynamic. That is why I will not be voting in favour of Bill C-5. Thank you. Wela’lin.

Senator Francis, will you take a question?

Yes.

Thank you. I truly appreciate your speech and your reference to a recent amendment in the other place which provided:

. . . the Minister must ensure that a process is established that allows for the active and meaningful participation of the affected Indigenous peoples . . . .

I think later you provide that it is silent, however, on the standard and threshold for consultation. Could you provide further comment on that?

Thank you, senator, for the question.

Really, what it all comes down to — and I said this a lot in my remarks here — is being equal partners at the table. That is all we have been saying.

You are a former Chief. I am a former Chief. We have been at the tables where consultation was talked about, but it wasn’t true, meaningful consultation.

What we are seeing here is that this is a rushed process. Take the time, have the rights holders at the table, and let’s get this done the right way.

July 1 is only an arbitrary deadline. We have time to do this right, so let’s do it right with Indigenous peoples across Canada.

Would the senator take another question?

Yes.

I think you and I would both agree that our inherent rights have been established through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Calls to Action.

In that regard, my question is this: What is stopping tribal Chiefs, tribal councils or Chiefs and councillors from flipping the table and calling the government to the table, saying, “Here are our expectations for meaningful consultation and engagement; this is what we are looking for”?

Why don’t you take a proactive approach and set the table for them to come to you?

Thank you, Senator Klyne. That’s a good statement. I think it may have to come to that. First Nations may have to become more engaged and say, “As rights holders, we’ll sit down with you and let you know what we think about how this should move forward in a positive and meaningful way.”

Again, Indigenous peoples from across Canada are not against development. However, when it comes to our lands and our territories — and I go back to myself and Prince Edward Island with 10,000 years behind us — we just want to do what’s right for our land, have a rightful place at the negotiating table and be meaningfully consulted in the negotiations.

Senator Francis, will you take a question?

I hear what you are saying in terms of consultation, and I hear what Senator Klyne had just said.

Before I travelled here yesterday, I was attending the Council of Yukon First Nations General Assembly. I was told at the General Assembly regarding Bill C-5 that the Assembly of First Nations does not speak for the Yukon First Nations and that the rights holders — self-governing First Nations have another term for it — have been consulted and have spoken with the Office of the Prime Minister and the Privy Council Office and that, in their view, the hard-won and very challenging development assessment process that I spoke of yesterday —

Senator Duncan, the time for debate has expired.

Senator Francis, are you asking for more time to hear and answer the question?

I am asking for more time to answer the question.

Is leave granted?

Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate that. I’ll ask my question.

Senator Francis, how, then, am I to reconcile that information when I’m hearing that there is support? You are saying that the differences across the country are challenging, but I’m hearing that First Nations’ rights are protected through the Constitution.

Thank you for the question, senator.

As I mentioned in my speech, not all First Nations are the same in Canada. There are varying opinions. Some are for project approvals as soon as possible to get things moving, and others have a different opinion.

The important thing is that it is incumbent upon the government to seek out who the rights holders are and who is actually acting on behalf of the Indigenous peoples across the country, and to have true and meaningful negotiations and consultations with those groups.

We have 634 First Nations across Canada, and that’s just First Nations without counting Inuit and Métis. It is a big task, but it is not impossible if it is done the right way.

Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak today at third reading of Part 2 of Bill C-5, the building Canada act.

As colleagues will remember, I commenced my remarks on this bill at second reading yesterday, speaking to the profound negative impacts that First Nations and other racialized communities have seen from resource extractive activity. I also spoke about the dangers posed by the jurisdictional gap in our Constitution around the environment and how this has led to weakened and unevenly applied environmental law in Canada.

I would now like to speak briefly to Indigenous customary law and its intimate connection to the environment.

In the book entitled The Right to a Healthy Environment: Revitalizing Canada’s Constitution, author David R. Boyd states:

Indigenous, English and French legal systems existed for centuries in Canada prior to the passage of the Constitution Act, 1867, and continue to operate today. Indigenous law can be defined as “those procedures and substantive values, principles, practices, and teachings that reflect, create, respect, enhance, and protect the world and our relationships within it.”

. . . as the Supreme Court has acknowledged, the ongoing project of reconciliation with the Aboriginal peoples of Canada requires the integration of Indigenous legal concepts into Canadian law. For example, the court wrote that “aboriginal interests and customary laws were presumed to survive the assertion of sovereignty, and were absorbed into the common law as rights.”

. . . the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada endorsed in 2010, refers repeatedly to the importance of recognizing and respecting indigenous laws and legal institutions.

One of the bedrock elements of Indigenous law common to many Aboriginal societies is the idea of a living Earth, with a set of rights and responsibilities governing the relationships between humans and the natural world. As John Borrows has written, “The land’s sentience is a fundamental principle of Anishinabek law,” and it contributes to “a multiplicity of citizenship rights and responsibilities for Anishinabek people and the Earth.” Similarly, Mi’kmaq law is rooted in ecological relationships, extending legal personalities to animals, plants, insects, and rocks, and imposing legal obligations on Mi’kmaq persons.

Honourable senators, customary law still exists today and serves to protect the right to a healthy environment.

In continuation of my remarks around the existent right to a healthy environment as granted by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, I would like to quote from the Library of Parliament’s document, Climate Change and the Right to a Healthy Environment: International and Canadian Developments. Its author, Robert Mason, writes:

In addition to this recognition of the right to a healthy natural environment through the UNDRIP action plan, the right to a healthy environment may have further implications in the context of Aboriginal and treaty rights, which are recognized in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. While the nature and scope of Aboriginal and treaty rights vary, in general, climate change has detrimental impacts on the realization of these rights, particularly rights grounded in traditional land use practices. Courts have long recognized that Indigenous peoples have a right to be free from government actions that would substantially deprive them of the land or resources that sustain traditional practices, customs or traditions. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that climate change has “had a particularly serious effect on Indigenous peoples, threatening the ability of Indigenous communities in Canada to sustain themselves and maintain their traditional ways of life.”

The author continues:

Several NGOs and groups of young people have recently sought judicial recognition that existing rights under the Charter include the right to a healthy environment. . . .

. . . in Environnement Jeunesse c. Procureur général du Canada . . . the Court of Appeal of Quebec . . . concluded that the claim was not justiciable —

— this means whether the remedy can appropriately be granted by a court —

— since it was focused on the inaction of government and would have essentially required the court to dictate legislative solutions.

Furthermore, author Robert Mason writes that in La Rose v. Canada:

. . . the Federal Court found that the claims under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter were not justiciable because a remedy would essentially require “judicial involvement in Canada’s overall policy response to climate change,” which would be beyond the court’s institutional legitimacy or capacity.

Honourable senators, the right to a healthy environment is generally understood to include both substantive rights, such as safe climate systems, clean air and non-toxic environments, and procedural rights, such as access to information and access to justice. Regrettably, however, in many instances, the access to justice through the court system remains the only option for First Nations, yet now that might not be an option due to government inaction.

Colleagues, Canada is not a dictatorship, yet the so-called “Henry VIII” clauses in Bill C-5 bring us dangerously close to that precipice. Will any of the bills that we will diligently study, debate and vote on in the future fall into the category of those being exempted as being incongruent with the government of the day’s whims?

Honourable senators, in the event that Bill C-5 is seen to facilitate environmental racism, will the Senate then have the opportunity to recommend to the Governor-in-Council the abolition of Bill C-5? Given the increasingly truncated timelines for environmental reviews and consultation processes, we may well come to realize that, in its current state, Bill C-5 will not have improved nor enhanced natural resource development and energy production, as it is intending to do.

Within my remarks today, coupled with my remarks at second reading yesterday, I hope to have painted a picture of the dire state of affairs First Nations and other racialized communities face with regard to the negative outputs of resource extraction. Their lands, waters, air, animals and the very people themselves have been ravaged by the various toxins, pollutions, “man camps” and overall degradation such extractive activities yield.

Despite Canada’s constitutional ambiguity around environmental matters, which I have also spoken about, the federal government has made genuine efforts and tangible strides in legislating environmental justice and related protections. These efforts are best encapsulated in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, which legislates the right to a healthy environment, as well as the environmental racism legislation that this chamber passed last May.

Colleagues, the paramountcy of our collective right to a healthy environment and the vital need to ensure Canada continues in its efforts to address environmental racism toward environmental justice must not take a back seat to any future natural resource project. The best way we can do this is to ensure that both CEPA and the National Strategy Respecting Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act are explicitly referenced not in Schedule 2, among those acts that can be bypassed by regulations, but rather in subclause 21(2), regarding those acts of Parliament that are not authorized to be added to Schedule 2.