Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good evening, everyone.
I'm coming to you from the traditional territory of the Huron-Wendat people here in Quebec City, where the chiefs of Quebec are gathered in assembly, and one of the topics we're talking about is Bill C-5.
I'm here today to express my firm and unequivocal opposition to Bill C-5, a bill that, under the guise of cutting red tape and building the nation, threatens the very foundations of Canada's constitutional order, the rights of first nations and our shared path towards reconciliation. Let me be clear: Bill C-5 proposes to reduce federal regulatory burdens and accelerate major infrastructure projects, but in doing so, it casts aside essential constitutional obligations. The duty to consult and accommodate first nations is not a procedural hurdle or a box to be checked; it is a constitutional imperative recognized and guaranteed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, upheld time and again by the Supreme Court and reaffirmed in Canada's commitments under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The bill does not represent legislative reconciliation; it represents legislative recklessness. Prime Minister Carney says he wants to “Build, baby, build.” I ask, “Build what, and at what cost, in a country that sidelines the rights of its first peoples, that chooses speed over justice, discretion over duty and litigation over dialogue?” The process that led to Bill C-5 is a case study in how to not engage with indigenous nations: no draft bill; no meaningful engagement; no recognition of the complexity of our rights, title and interests; and no possibility of legislative co-development. Some may argue that Bill C-5 reaffirms the government's obligations under section 35 and UNDRIP, but I say that words in a bill mean nothing if the process is hollow, if free, prior, and informed consent is disregarded and if discretion trumps rights in practice, no pun intended.
Let me point to a recent decision that lays bare the gap between promise and reality. Earlier this year, in Kebaowek First Nation v. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, the Federal Court ruled that the Crown failed in its constitutional duty to consult when it approved a nuclear waste facility near the Ottawa River without properly applying UNDRIP. The court found that free, prior and informed consent requires more than a box-checking exercise. It demands a meaningful process that respects indigenous laws, knowledge and governance, aimed at achieving mutual agreement.
This is the risk we face with Bill C-5, a future in which UNDRIP becomes another hollow promise on the long road to reconciliation. Let's be honest about what this bill represents: It represents a choice between two paths. The first path is legislative reconciliation, and that means implementing the UNDRIP Act in good faith; harmonizing federal laws to respect indigenous rights, title and treaties; and working with first nations to build a sustainable and just future for us all. The second path is litigation, the path that this government seems determined to follow. However, let me remind you that first nations have defended our rights in court. For decades we have won, and we will continue to win. Governments that ignore their constitutional obligations invite legal challenges and delays, and deepen division.
Bill C-5 does not address climate targets, protect biodiversity and respect the rights of first nations. Instead, it sets the stage for another wave of conflict, protest, court battles and public outcry. The conditions for an Idle No More 2.0 uprising are being written into the law as we speak.
This is about which country we want to build: a country where economic development is pursued at any cost, or a country where growth is balanced with justice, partnership and respect for the land and its original stewards. We must reject Bill C-5. We must call on the government to start over, engage first nations as true partners and co-develop the legislation that aligns economic ambitions with constitutional duty, environmental protection and indigenous sovereignty. The clock may be ticking for the government's deadline, but our rights are not on their schedule. Our future is not for sale.
In closing, I urge this chamber and all Canadians to recognize that Bill C-5 is not a blueprint for progress. It is a blueprint for division at a time when our country needs to be more united than ever. Let's choose a better path, one that honours our Constitution, our commitments under UNDRIP and our shared future on this land.
Meegwetch.