Colleagues, I rise today at third reading of Bill C-5, Part 2, which seeks to build the Canada of tomorrow. I commend the leadership of Senator Yussuff, the sponsor of this bill, who provided us with a great deal of food for thought through briefings and through his very touching and informative speeches.

This bill is ambitious. It seeks to fast-track projects of national interest, facilitate interprovincial trade and strengthen our economic cohesion. I support this bill, because I believe it is high time a country as vast, as complex and as blessed by diversity as ours secured the tools it needs to fulfill its aspirations.

We want to build quickly, but above all, we must build fairly, to ensure prosperity for all Canadians.

That is why I want to remind you that this push for economic development must include the dimension of economic justice. We have a responsibility to promote not only efficiency, but also fairness in the way contracts are awarded, suppliers are selected and construction projects are rolled out.

Proposed section 19 in Part 2 of Bill C-5 provides that certain national interest projects will be exempted from several stages of the environmental impact assessment. The goal is to fast-track the projects, but that must not be done by compromising on consultation, as others here have pointed out. Nor must transparency or inclusion be sacrificed. If the government is doing things faster, it must be twice as vigilant about who benefits from these projects and how they are carried out.

A number of colleagues have already spoken about challenges related to consulting, listening to and including Indigenous peoples, a must at every stage of these major projects. I am grateful to my colleagues, who gave us plenty to consider in that regard. I myself will be focusing on Black entrepreneurs, and I’ll also take this opportunity to discuss the study I had the honour of co-leading with my colleague, Senator Colin Deacon, here at the Senate in the summer of 2023.

I wish to express my deep gratitude to Senator Deacon for his leadership and thoughtfulness.

Senator Deacon is one of the few people who freely admits, after experiencing it first-hand, that White privilege exists in Canadian business circles and that, unless it’s actively dismantled, this privilege will perpetuate the exclusion of Black entrepreneurs and undermine their economic prosperity.

I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to read or reread our report, which clearly shows that a good business plan is no guarantee of success. Black entrepreneurs from a wide range of backgrounds, and Black women in particular, have to overcome multiple systemic barriers, which are often invisible but very real. I experienced this myself during my 25 years in business here in Canada, before being appointed to the Senate.

More recent data is unequivocal: Today, the population of Black Canadians or Canadians of African descent exceeds 1.5 million, which represents 4.3% of the total population.

Furthermore, in 2024, the Diversity Institute found that 76% of Black people in Canada were very interested in entrepreneurship, higher than the national average. There is a variety of possible reasons, including a lack of jobs, a need for financial independence and an interest in creating multi-generational wealth.

However, Statistics Canada reported that only 1.3% of Black adults were entrepreneurs in 2024, compared to 2.3% for all Canadian adults.

Just 0.7% of them are Black women. Black women are one of the most under-represented groups among entrepreneurs across Canada, compared to 1.2% of women overall.

Furthermore, according to Statistics Canada, in 2024, 53% of immigrants and 32% of children of immigrants were entrepreneurs.

Approximately 144,990 businesses were run by Black people, representing 2.4% of all small businesses in the country. According to the Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC, and the Diversity Institute, in 2024, 83% of Black entrepreneurs had to self-finance their businesses because they couldn’t access credit.

However, 81% of them say they are optimistic about the prospects for their businesses, again according to BDC in 2024. These figures are not anecdotal. They are reflective of a system that too often reproduces inequalities instead of correcting them.

Our report proposes meaningful solutions that could be used in the context of Bill C-5: strengthening collaboration between stakeholders, consistently investing in Black entrepreneurship initiatives, collecting disaggregated data and fully embracing the government’s role as a catalyst.

However, I want to emphasize a fundamental point: Equity is not a favour; it must be grounded in competence and results. It is a societal responsibility for businesses to integrate inclusion not only as a criterion for awarding contracts but also as a measure of performance.

It is a responsibility for government to assess developers, consortia and large companies not only on their ability to deliver, but on their ability to include all businesses.

For me, business and social development go hand in hand. The one cannot thrive sustainably without the other. Economic inclusion is a driver of growth, cohesion and justice.

Building the Canada of tomorrow is not just about building infrastructure. It’s also about building a country where every entrepreneur and every community can contribute fully to our collective prosperity. Intersectionality must be integrated as a central pillar of the assessment of major projects, in order to fully reflect the complex realities experienced by all affected communities.

Honourable senators, I will be voting in favour of Bill C-5, but my support comes with a firm commitment to you here today. I will ensure that social responsibility, when it comes to equity, inclusion and economic justice, becomes an essential standard in the implementation of all national interest projects.

We must ensure that Black-owned businesses in all regions of the country are not only considered, but fully equipped and integrated into the value chains of these major nation-building projects. This is how we will ensure prosperity that is truly shared, growth that is sustainable and a Canada that reflects all of its communities. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act. Canada is going through a period of transition and upheaval. Some of the relationships that we have been accustomed to for years, particularly when it comes to trade, have been turned upside down.

The consequences have already been devastating for our citizens. Canadians are paying higher prices for countless goods and services, driving up the overall cost of living, while costs also remain high in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Canadian workers are facing job instability in sectors weakened by tariffs, putting them, their families and their livelihoods at risk.

The viability and long-term prospects of Canada’s resource sector are increasingly uncertain, and this is only exacerbated by the withdrawal and expulsion of our largest trading partner.

Honourable senators, as an example, I’d like to paint a picture of a young Canadian who has seen his financial situation deteriorate rapidly in recent years. Home ownership, once a short-term aspiration for the younger generation, is now a pipe dream, since house prices have doubled nationally over the past decade.

What’s more, in the last five years alone, the price of groceries has risen by 26%, making it harder for people to feed themselves and their families. According to Food Banks Canada’s HungerCount, 55% of Canadian families struggle to meet their basic food needs, and food bank demand has reached historic highs across the country.

Honourable senators, we all know individuals like the ones I’ve just described. They could be your child or grandchild, your niece or nephew, your neighbour, or perhaps your staffer.

This is why Bill C-5 should be so critical. It should enable bold, decisive and game-changing action that will drive meaningful improvement to Canada’s economic outlook, both for the country and for its people.

The need to address these threats and those imposed by Canada’s largest trading partner was not only a defining ballot box question for many Canadians during this year’s election but the impetus for the bill before us.

Canada is a trading nation. We are blessed with an abundance of natural resources that are in high demand across the globe. However, Canada’s critical infrastructure currently falls woefully short of ensuring that our supply meets the demand. Having focused too long on honing the relationship with our neighbour to the south, we have neglected to adequately build the muscles required to diversify our trade. We are now seeing the immediate and severe consequences of having become complacent and over reliant on one market.

Global Affairs Canada points out that 65% of Canada’s economic activity is tied to international trade. Instead of prioritizing this trade singularly to our next-door neighbour, often at a significant discount, it is imperative to Canada’s future prosperity and economic growth that we build the necessary muscle to trade more with the rest of the world.

I wanted to be excited about supporting this bill, but because it was rushed through Parliament, we have not had the opportunity to properly consider it and provide feedback about appropriate checks and balances, and importantly, receive feedback from Indigenous leadership — rights holders, not stakeholders — feedback, that, if incorporated, might have set this legislation up for a greater chance of success and fewer challenges. Sometimes you have to go slow to go fast.

I am hopeful that, with the commitments by the Prime Minister and his cabinet, we will be able to overcome these challenges and still achieve what the bill was intended to accomplish. So I speak in support of this bill.

I would like to frame my comments by acknowledging the background I bring with me to the Senate. Prior to my appointment, I spent the last 13 years on the executive leadership team of Canada’s largest port, which handles one third of our trade outside of North America. I saw projects and trade opportunities both succeed and fail. It is from this perspective that I see how Bill C-5 may enable Canada to get out of its own way and move forward with the nation-building infrastructure that will allow us to diversify our international trade capacity to the great benefit of Canadians.

However, I am also attuned to the concerns around this legislation and what fast-tracking such projects might mean for environmental considerations or for Indigenous people’s inherent and treaty rights. It is unfortunate that there was not more early engagement on this legislation with Indigenous leaders as I believe that would have provided an opportunity to structure the bill in a way that would have inspired greater confidence. That said, in my view, the bill does ensure section 35 rights are respected, although not as expressly as some would have liked.

In that respect, I would like to reiterate some of the remarks made by the Honourable Rebecca Alty, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, from her appearance during the Senate’s Committee of the Whole as they merit repeating:

 . . . Major projects will only proceed under this act with meaningful consultation and accommodation with Indigenous peoples whose section 35 rights may be affected.

This act requires extensive consultation with Indigenous peoples, first during the national interest designation process, then while developing the conditions these projects will have to meet.

This requirement is not optional. It is protected under the Canadian Constitution and is embedded throughout the legislation.

Colleagues, I was also going to refer to Canada’s Interpretation Act. However, our colleague, the Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate, the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson, has spoken to it quite eloquently already, and I am pleased to hear the government’s assurance that the Interpretation Act will be followed.

Just as we must ensure Indigenous rights are not compromised, we must also ensure we are not forsaking environmental protection. I understand the concern that environmental considerations could be placed on the back burner when we talk about fast-tracking specific nation-building projects. For example, the importance of mitigation efforts and of restoring and re-wilding Canada’s environments and ecosystems will be a critical part of the work around these nation-building projects.

I would like to reiterate and strongly support a suggestion from Mr. Sean Southey, Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Wildlife Federation, during his testimony before the Senate’s Committee of the Whole. In speaking about third-party habitat banking and offset programs, Mr. Southey said:

 . . . [An offset] is a conservation action that’s designed to compensate for the impact of the development projects. . . . Putting it simply, if there’s a negative environmental impact over here, we have to ensure [that there’s] an equal or better environmental improvement somewhere else. . . .

We encourage the federal government to allow this remedy by enabling third-party habitat banking under the Fisheries Act. This is a win-win-win. Conservation benefits arise from restoring habitats in advance and confirming the effectiveness before selling credits. Proponents, the champions of these projects, can benefit from streamlined regulatory approvals while we recognize the environmental benefits for all Canadians.

Colleagues, in essence, third-party habitat banking is when an organization other than the developer responsible for a project creates, restores or enhances habitat and then sells credits to proponents who need to offset the environmental impacts of their projects. Under this approach, habitat is built and proven functional prior to being eligible for use as an offset against a project unlike the current approach of requiring offsets that have yet to be created or proven.

While this kind of system takes time to establish and will not help us in the very short-term, I will continue to advocate for this kind of approach as an integral piece of a more effective and efficient regulatory framework going forward.

While I support the intent and goal of Bill C-5, I would also like to echo a point that was raised by the Honourable Lisa Raitt during the Senate’s Committee of the Whole. Ms. Raitt voiced concern around the possible politicalization of the decision-making processes under this bill. While the amendments have addressed some of these concerns, Ms. Raitt had advocated for the reinstatement of the Major Projects Management Office as it was structured during Prime Minister Harper’s tenure. This office, led by Natural Resources Canada, was a horizontal initiative across 12 federal departments and agencies. Their mandate was to improve the review process for major natural resource projects. Importantly, this initiative was governed by a deputy minister’s committee, which provided direction to resolve project and policy matters and who provided true accountability to the process.

As someone who has worked in the ambit of major project development under successive governments, I can attest to the effectiveness of this model which gave deputy ministers a laser-like focus on achieving objectives while at the same time depoliticizing the governance around major project approval and delivery — a concern about Bill C-5. As the government moves to create a new office to oversee projects of national interest, I strongly urge them to reinstate this effective model, particularly the component with respect to oversight and accountability at the highest levels of the public service. I would ask that our Government Representative Office take that back to the ministers.

Colleagues, the bill before us represents economic opportunity that Canada so desperately needs. We have a cost-of-living crisis that is bringing countless Canadians to the point of falling behind rather than getting ahead. We are facing a housing shortage nationally. Our health care system is overstretched and understaffed. Climate change continues to wreak havoc on our ecosystems, requiring funding to meet and mitigate its impacts. Our recent defence spending commitments, while critical, mean we are working with less funding for other vital areas. Investments in essential infrastructure in Indigenous communities, such as a clean drinking water supply, are sorely lacking. We need a growing and thriving economy in order to fund these initiatives.

In short, let’s not tie the hands of our government to deliver what Canadians voted for them to do. Rather, let’s support this bill while holding the government to account for its many stated commitments to deliver economic prosperity in a manner that respects the environment, respects section 35 rights and reflects Canada’s commitments in relation to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Fellow senators, let’s give the government the chance to prove it can rise to the challenge. Thank you. Meegwetch. Hiy hiy.

Senator, would you take a question? Thank you very much. It’s a pretty special lens that you had with the port work and being able to see — going back to what Ms. Raitt said in testimony last week, talking about the large project office.

We have heard — I think we can encapsulate trust, collaboration, skepticism, rushing — common words we have heard about this bill thus far. Your experience with that projects office, is there anything from your lens that you would think that would make the work of that office even better from your working perspective? If we’re going to get it right, let’s get it really right.

Thank you. That’s an excellent question. The decision around what projects are covered by that office is a critical one. In that situation, they were natural resource projects, and while we had some involvement with some of those, there were many projects that were of national significance, in that situation, that were not included.

So right now, under the context of this bill, we’re looking purely at projects of national significance. There are probably many other projects in the system that could benefit from that kind of approach. I would say that if there is one thing we can do is maybe use this as a pilot program to figure out what that governance model looks like, and then we can start applying those lessons to other parts of the regulatory review process.