Hon. Duncan Wilson: 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.