Honourable senators, I was sworn into this chamber in September 2023. In my almost two years of sitting in this chamber, I’ve started to see some troubling patterns emerge.

First, like clockwork, an emergency rears its ugly head close to the holiday break in December and just before the summer recess in June. While I understand these periods just prior to an extended break are often referred to as “silly season” on the Hill, the constant and consistent chorus of “Senators, we must pass this bill without delay and without amendment due to . . . .” — insert court date, existential crisis or external pressure point here — is becoming tiresome. At what point will the government seek that court extension, start the process early or even decide to sit later so that we can actually do our jobs and do them well?

Senators who were here during the last Parliament may remember Bill S-7, which sought to amend the Customs Act and the Preclearance Act, 2016. It allowed border security to seize and search digital devices. This raised many questions around how to balance security with personal privacy.

As Senator Wells pointed out in his third reading speech:

The government put forth the bill that we have before us just a few short weeks ago. Prior to that time, there was no active engagement by government officials with any outside parties. There was no indication of what they were contemplating. Instead, we had a bill dropped on the Senate with a demand that it be passed as quickly as possible. And you’ll recall, colleagues, that it was introduced in the Senate on the day the extension expired.

We were told it was vital that we pass this legislation as soon as possible without delay. Yet, colleagues, Bill S-7 never made it past first reading in the other place, so I question how much of an emergency it truly was.

Programming motions are also becoming the norm. As a new senator, I bought into the argument that programming motions help to structure our time and avoid political games delaying key pieces of legislation. However, it now feels as though programming motions are nothing but shackles that constrain our ability to give thorough examination to bills — bills that would have significant impacts on our communities and the country as a whole.

Bill C-5, for instance, was amended in the other place to include allowances for an “active and meaningful” process of consultation. I would have appreciated the opportunity to bring in the minister responsible to ask them what that type of process would look like. Arguably, we should already be employing an active and meaningful process as the government seeks to meet its obligations under section 35 of the Constitution. That line brings me little comfort. In the conversations with rights holders over the past few days, that feeling is shared across the country.

Another pattern we seem to fall into a lot are pre-studies. In an attempt to understand more about this chamber, its history and why we have the Rules and procedures that we do, I reached out to the Canadian Senators Group’s research bureau, which is an excellent resource. I want to share some portions of a briefing note they prepared on this subject:

The practice of Senate pre-studies evolved from the process established by the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance in the 1940s for studying the Estimates before the related supply bills were introduced in the chamber. The Senate adapted the process to deal with sweeping reforms to Canada’s income tax regime introduced in the 1970s following the Carter Royal Commission on Taxation. To facilitate more substantive review of the voluminous tax legislation, the Senate Banking Committee held meetings on the subject matter of the legislation before it was introduced in the Senate Chamber. The unique legislative process became known as the “Hayden Formula,” after the chair of the Banking committee, Senator Salter Hayden. The intention of the formula was to allow the Senate more time to study complex legislation and make proposals for amendments that could be incorporated in the bill before it was passed by the House of Commons.

In subsequent Parliaments, the Banking committee continued to use the Hayden Formula to study tax bills and other fiscal matters. Of the 30 bills pre-studied in the 1970s, 23 were conducted by the Banking committee. The purpose and scope of pre-studies, however, changed considerably in the 1980s. They were often used to accelerate the legislative process by allowing the Senate time to study bills that arrived in the chamber shortly before a recess period. A controversial 1991 government motion to refer four bills to committee for pre-study led Royce Frith, the Opposition Leader, to offer a “bouquet of repentance” for his original support of pre-studies when the practice began in the 1970s, saying “what was originally intended to have but limited application became the rule.” In the same debate, Senator Douglas Everett, who had also supported the initial use of Senate pre-studies, observed that “pre-study has become a manner of getting Senate interference out of the way.”

Mounting frustration about the shifting practice of pre‑studies meant that after 1990, the number of prestudies dropped considerably. In fact, between 1993 and 2009, only one non-budgetary bill — the Antiterrorism Act introduced in the wake of September 11 — was subject of a pre-study. Since 2010, the number of pre-studies has increased, though the majority have been for bills related to financial measures. In the 43rd and 44th Parliament, however, the assigned committee and legislative subject matter of pre‑studies have become more diverse, with half of the bills referred to committee relating to non-financial measures.

Colleagues, not only have we lost our way with pre-studies as they were originally intended to be, but we have, as Senator Simons said yesterday, painted ourselves into a corner where after 12 hours of pre-study via Committee of the Whole, we are now asked to vote on a bill that has changed substantively. Colleagues, we have no ability to hear from witnesses as to the potential repercussions or unintended consequences of these amendments.

We also have not given any real time for First Nations to analyze these amendments and see how they address their concerns. Instead, we must rely on what few briefs and open letters we are able to amass during a time when many Indigenous leaders are in ceremony and celebrating National Indigenous Peoples Day and when much of Parliament is away on holiday for Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

The final pattern I want to point out today is that when the Senate begins to sink its teeth into issues embedded with these big, rushed and emergency bills and even a whisper of an amendment emerges, we inevitably receive a letter from one or more ministers trying to appease our fears and talk us out of passing amendments.

Case in point: Yesterday, on June 25, Senator Yussuff tabled a letter from Minister LeBlanc thanking us for our work and pointing to how the government has or will be addressing the concerns raised in our Committee of the Whole proceedings.

But, colleagues, I have seen this movie before. I’ve eaten the popcorn, and I know how it ends. I’d like to share with senators a passage from a June 17, 2025, open letter from the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs to Prime Minister Carney on C-5:

The government’s background document for Indigenous audiences then claimed “[w]e have heard from Provinces, Territories and Indigenous Peoples that they want to see projects like mines, nuclear facilities, ports and other infrastructure prioritized.” We see this statement as misleading, as it casts Indigenous Peoples in a singular light and certainly fails to capture our interests, since no advance discussions were held with us. Unfortunately, this is not the first time our Mi’kmaw leadership has been put in a compromised position when bills are rushed through the legislative process. It is becoming an alarming pattern at both the federal and provincial level. We are not being given opportunities to have our voices heard before the introduction, or during the passage of bills.

When legislation unsurprisingly fails to address our interests, we are being given broken promises that our concerns will be addressed after-the-fact in regulations. Some of these examples include:

Bill C-49: An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act – This Act has serious potential to impact the section 35 rights of the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia. Despite having meetings specifically dedicated to emerging developments in the energy sector, this Bill was never put on the agenda nor raised by the Crown. We sit at several tables with the Provincial and Federal Governments where this bill should have been discussed but was never raised or flagged for us. From a relationship perspective, these types of omissions are highly erosive. Throughout the legislative process, our team was repeatedly assured that our concerns would be addressed in the regulations, but the proposed regulations make zero mention of Indigenous consultation or Aboriginal and Treaty Rights under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and in no way address any of our feedback.

Those assurances came in — you guessed it — a letter from Minister Wilkinson.

Look also to Bill C-45, which legalized cannabis in Canada. Assurances were made in a letter from the Ministers of Indigenous Affairs and Health, promising to work on a framework that would enable First Nations to tax and regulate cannabis on reserve. However, seven years later, that has yet to happen. These broken promises have happened so often that our Indigenous Peoples Committee had a long list of studies dedicated to pushing the government to account for their lack of follow-through.

Bill C-5 has not only illuminated for me these troublesome patterns, but also highlighted that Canada is becoming a country of extremes. Gone is the ability to have a moderate social discourse. Instead, positions must be black and white with no grey space in between.

When I came out against the rushed nature of this bill and spoke about the need to amend or even delay its passage, the racist vitriol and threats my office experienced were so intense, staff asked for permission to not answer phone calls from unknown callers. That is not right and not acceptable.

Too often, Indigenous peoples are painted as barriers to progress. We are seen coming “. . . hat in hand . . .” to government, as one Canadian leader recently put it, and that upsets me because I know that all Indigenous people want progress. We are not opposed to building infrastructure and want opportunities to generate own-source revenue. No one wants to watch our children grow up in squalor, with no access to clean drinking water, no opportunity for good-paying jobs and no support for our sick and dying.

However, we do not want success and progress to come on the backs of Indigenous peoples. We want to be at the table making decisions alongside Canadian politicians, because these decisions affect us, our lands and our resources.

These racist tropes are built on a continued belief in terra nullius and the Doctrine of Discovery. They are born from the ongoing belief that Canada was a barren wasteland filled with savages prior to the arrival of the English and the French. Those who perpetuate stereotypes of lazy Indians are those who buy into the types of claims you see in editorials like Nigel Biggar’s June 23, 2025, National Post article, which claims that the idea of Canada being built on stolen land “. . . historically and legally inaccurate.” It’s people who make the claim that they paid for the title to this land fair and square. It’s folks who seriously ask, in their comments online:

I wonder what the North American continent would look like without the White Man’s immigration over hundreds of years.

This country has passed laws that restricted our ability to leave our reserves and forbade us from practising our traditions and speaking our languages. They have passed laws that caused our kids to be forcibly removed from us and put into residential schools. We were even barred from hiring lawyers to try to defend ourselves and our rights. By the by, colleagues, all those laws had to pass through this chamber in order to become law.

That is why we push so hard in this new era of reconciliation: to ensure that there is no backslide. Never again do we want to have decisions dictated to us. We want to be part of the discussion from the very beginning.

The sad thing, colleagues, is that we likely would have come to this place, or a very similar one, had the government done its job and taken the time to consult with Indigenous peoples. The government’s promise was to break down the remaining federal barriers to interprovincial trade by Canada Day. That’s Part 1 of this bill.

Part 2 of this bill, the building Canada act, was never promised on such a short timeline. I am confident that by investing a few more months into this bill and ensuring that rights holders had an opportunity to share their thoughts and offer revisions, we would have seen this bill pass with overwhelming support. But I suppose now we will never know.

I will pause here to say thank you to my colleague Senator Patterson and her staff, who advocated so strongly for the inclusion of the voices of Indigenous rights holders in our limited proceedings on this bill.

I also want to thank my Canadian Senators Group, or CSG, colleagues, who recognized how important it was to me that we ensured there was Indigenous content on the record. They supported me by giving me ample opportunity to ask questions of ministers and witnesses. Thank you, dear colleagues, for creating the space for me to share my voice. It is because of that advocacy that we have such powerful words, like those of Chief Shelly Moore-Frappier of Temagami First Nation, in the Hansard. She told us:

Canada continues to speak about nation-to-nation relationships and reconciliation. This legislation does the opposite. It asserts power over First Peoples, our resources and our rights. It was developed without us. It vaguely addresses our constitutional and treaty protections, and if passed, it will further entrench unilateralism as the default method of governing First Peoples.

Bill C-5 is not reconciliation; it is a betrayal of it.

The duty to consult has never been enough. It has always placed the burden of proof and advocacy on First Nations to defend our own rights, often with limited resources and no guarantees. . . .

Other right holders have reached out, insistent that we must hear from them before passing this legislation. While there is no longer an opportunity for them to speak to senators directly, I want to share some of their words with you.

Councillor Larry Sault, from the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, said the following to me in an emailed statement:

Historically, “national interest” was the language used when Sir John A MacDonald (Progressive Conservative) championed his dream and was the driving force for the construction of the transcontinental Canadian Pacific Railway (about land and development). History records the atrocious acts he committed against our people to have them removed out of the path he wanted for CPR. Forced removal from our people’s homelands, starvation tactics to have our people submit to his whims, killing off the sustenance (buffalo) etc. At the time it was called “the Indian problem.”

He went on to ask, “Is this what Canada wants to see in 2025?”

Chief Raymond Powder of Fort McKay First Nation notes that:

Our primary focus is economic reconciliation. This is the lens through which our Nation is approaching Bill C-5.

He goes on to note his community’s desire to “give depth and meaning” to paragraph 5(6)(d) of the bill, which points to advancing “. . . the interests of Indigenous peoples.” Later in his submission, he notes:

We recognize the extremely short timeframe available for input on this proposed legislation. We will be available for meetings or consultations as they arise to make our voice heard during the legislative process. Fort McKay First Nation is a sovereign Nation, and we want to continue our direct relationship with the federal government.

Similarly, Chief Phyllis Whitford of O’Chiese First Nation writes:

Despite all these decisions regarding our creator given gifts, we have never given up our responsibilities and authorities to care for those gifts. When King Charles III delivered the Throne Speech, he made a special reference to the right of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). This is our treaty right . . . .

Canada without discussion with our Peoples, introduced Bill C5: One Canadian Economy Act. Our Territories and Resources are going to be subjected to the unilateral decisions made by the Governor in Council. The process by passes Parliament bringing to an end — 400 years or more of parliamentary history. There is no need to have a House of Commons or a Senate — when Cabinet can make the decisions. Except, there is a problem. Peace and Friendship Treaties made with our Peoples. The Crown’s subjects to do not get to make the rules to overtake our rights. While the House of Commons can give up its responsibilities to its constituents — we cannot give up our responsibilities and obligations to our future generations.

All across this country, similar sentiments are being expressed by rights holders and representative Indigenous organizations like the Assembly of First Nations.

In his letter, Minister Leblanc notes that:

The proposed legislation aims to accelerate major projects without compromising legal obligations, such as UNDA and the Duty to Consult, or broader reconciliation objectives.

Well, colleagues, UNDA, in section 5 states that:

The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.

Further, section 6(1) states that the government must “. . . prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration.”

Under the “Shared Priorities” chapter of the 2023-2028 Action Plan, the very first priority area goal is to:

. . . ensure a Canada where: Respect for Indigenous rights is systematically embedded in federal laws and policies developed in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples affected by them.

Now, we are too far gone for Bill C-5 to be developed in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, but there is still an opportunity to ensure that this bill is amended in such a way that we embed our right to free, prior and informed consent, or FPIC, in this legislation. FPIC is not a veto; it is a standard of treatment and a recognition of our inherent right to self-governance and self-determination.

I know that many of you will be hesitant to amend this legislation. To many of my colleagues, refrains such as the following must sound all too familiar: “We must not go against the elected chamber,” or “We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that we are appointed and thus do not have a mandate to amend the legislation that has already passed the other place,” or — one of my personal favourites — “Trust us.” However, the very reason we are appointed is so that we are outside the pressures of the electoral cycle and are able to stand on principle against poorly drafted legislation.

We are not “less than.” We are a chamber equal in stature to the other place. We can draft and amend legislation. In fact, it is our duty to ensure that legislation is reflective of the regions we represent, and it is our duty to give voice to minorities that are often marginalized. I cringe when I hear people say that we need to back away from amendments lest it turn public opinion against us. Senators have often remarked on Canadians questioning our relevance. I say to you: We are only irrelevant if we make ourselves irrelevant.

I want to challenge you using the words of Chief Moore-Frappier:

I remind you we are ready to move forward together. If Canada is serious about reconciliation, then it must start acting like a treaty partner. The honour of the Crown is not just ceremonial; it is the moral foundation of your relationship with First Peoples. That honour is on the line.

The Chief also said that the only real currency is trust.

Wela’lioq. Thank you very much.