Hon. Brian Francis: 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.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.