Thanks for this great explanation. I am against it as it is a threat to Indigenous First Nations reservations. This is more like something Trump would do and early on, I developed doubts about Carney but the choices were few and he represents the lesser of 2 evils. Now please explain bill C-2 Thank you
If Canada is entering a period of activist industrial policy, which it seems we are, then we need to ensure the 'winners' are selected for the national interest and held to account for that desired impact. Bill C5 does not do that. Premier Ford called Carney "Santa Claus" = exactly. Bill C5 is more corporate welfare for a lucky few industries/sectors/corps across the country (because this is Canada so we have to be fair to all the corps) without adequate oversight or forethought, let alone acting in partnership with Indigenous peoples. Where is the parallel labour strategy? Where is the parallel accountability strategy? I voted for the LPC because the alternative was unimaginable. But, "trust me" isn't going to keep my support. Not in this cynical age.
I might add that this Trumpian crisis is fundamentally different from our war effort in that it calls on us to transform ourselves, not just meet some short term goals but to redefine ourselves to reduce our dependency and refashion our economy - we need new international partners, we need to do more and make more things by Canadians for Canadians, we need to trade more with one another, and we need to do all this in a way that respects core democratic values and ensures that the costs and benefits are fairly distributed - it is a different kind of crisis because our response will in many respects reflect who we are and who we want to be and shape who we become.
I have a question. We accomplished some, one might say, miraculous things, to fulfill the responsibilities the Allies entrusted to us here at home to assist the War Efforts. Did our government of the time, ever feel the need to suspend parliamentary oversight? I MIGHT consider a time-limited, extension of authority. Certainly no government should be given permanent permission to do anything!
yes it did invoke the War Measures Act which has since been replaced by an Act which much higher level of accountability. The question here is to ask whether this legislation has the balance right and frankly whether it will in the end actually speed things up and at what costs. Or better, can we not - should we not - find ways to go much faster without sacrificing democratic values and constitutional obligations. We will explore some ideas in a couple of days.
This leads me to couple more questions and a couple observations.
Why, if the current War Measures Act has "a higher level level of accountability", are we not invoking it?
Your wording indicates to me, that you don't think it's of adequate value. Why?
The negative response the last time it was invoked was mostly, in my opinion, by those on the Wrong Side of the issues.
Could it be, that a larger number of Canadian's than the fringe that's always around, would rather have Freedom To, than Freedom From?
Freedom To; do whatever I want, whenever I want, to whomever I want, without any repercussions whatsoever.
Or
Freedom from; hunger, homelessness, disease, discrimination, you know... all those things most of us recognize as necessary to live a good life.
The latter Freedom requires that we need good governance which requires, heaven forbid it appears, responsible citizenship.
I prefer the latter. It results in a system that doesn't require perfectly written laws so you can walk away from it and get on with your good life.
The perfect law does not exist. However, when people are responsible citizen's, when debate does arise, we remember what we what we intended of the words voted into being, because we were in the original debate. We can remind those who are varying from that intention and add to the words, to clarify, not muddy, our intentions as necessary.
If we really want to be lazy, and free to, we shall reap what we sow.
Look south to that sad crop to see our future in about twenty years.
if you want a useful look at the good and not so good but mostly impressive war effort have a look at A Good War by Seth Klein. He makes the case that a similar effort might be in order in the war to address the climate crisis. We pretty much know what that mission would look like. And we knew what had to be built in the war effort. But we have learned a thing or two, or should have, since then and we have also learned the high cost of ignoring Constitutional obligations (eg informed consent of Indigenous people) and much depends on the projects selected - imagine how you’d feel if you think the projects selected will do more harm than good. If you’re saying that we ought to be willing to make some compromises and support some tough decisions, no question - but we should have a full airing of the risk and the trade offs and assure ourselves that we haven’t sacrificed core democratic values or ignored constitutional obligations - we must not but we also need not
I understand your concerns but Nation Building is urgent and consultations have been going on for years to no avail. At some point, there will have to be agreements or a push towards an agreement….we can’t wait another ten years for the First Nations and Provincial consultation processes to unfold. We have to drop the fear and hesitation and get moving!
You make it seem like democracy and respect for our Constitutional obligations are what stands in our way and so it’s ok to gut them - to sideline parliament, forego transparency and accountability and short circuit our obligations to Indigenous people - but surely nation building should be guided by values of democracy, equity, sustainability and Indigenous reconciliation. Of course we should speed up approval but we are convinced that taking a little bit more time up front would help us get the balance right and save time at the back end. We could specify in law the criteria for national interest - wouldn’t slow things down. We could use less ambiguous language on Indigenous consent and the sunset provision. Might actually speed things up. We could require time limited parliamentary review of decisions and require the government to provide written reasons. We could require a comprehensive review of how the government used the sweeping powers the bill grants. But we won’t. You have to ask would you be as sanguine whatever government was in power, even a government you’d never vote for?
I would like to publish this letter in regard to Bill C-5 and biodiversity and Indigenous Leadership. Can all please help and subscribe follow The NANAVERSE Project - Miigwech
Thanks for this great explanation. I am against it as it is a threat to Indigenous First Nations reservations. This is more like something Trump would do and early on, I developed doubts about Carney but the choices were few and he represents the lesser of 2 evils. Now please explain bill C-2 Thank you
https://open.substack.com/pub/engagementcanadapledge/p/c-2-the-strong-borders-bill-a-law?r=mg65&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=124894312
If Canada is entering a period of activist industrial policy, which it seems we are, then we need to ensure the 'winners' are selected for the national interest and held to account for that desired impact. Bill C5 does not do that. Premier Ford called Carney "Santa Claus" = exactly. Bill C5 is more corporate welfare for a lucky few industries/sectors/corps across the country (because this is Canada so we have to be fair to all the corps) without adequate oversight or forethought, let alone acting in partnership with Indigenous peoples. Where is the parallel labour strategy? Where is the parallel accountability strategy? I voted for the LPC because the alternative was unimaginable. But, "trust me" isn't going to keep my support. Not in this cynical age.
All good questions.
I might add that this Trumpian crisis is fundamentally different from our war effort in that it calls on us to transform ourselves, not just meet some short term goals but to redefine ourselves to reduce our dependency and refashion our economy - we need new international partners, we need to do more and make more things by Canadians for Canadians, we need to trade more with one another, and we need to do all this in a way that respects core democratic values and ensures that the costs and benefits are fairly distributed - it is a different kind of crisis because our response will in many respects reflect who we are and who we want to be and shape who we become.
There is a petition on change.org https://www.change.org/p/defeat-bill-5-the-protect-ontario-by-unleashing-our-economy-act-2025
Thanks MaryAnne.
I have a question. We accomplished some, one might say, miraculous things, to fulfill the responsibilities the Allies entrusted to us here at home to assist the War Efforts. Did our government of the time, ever feel the need to suspend parliamentary oversight? I MIGHT consider a time-limited, extension of authority. Certainly no government should be given permanent permission to do anything!
yes it did invoke the War Measures Act which has since been replaced by an Act which much higher level of accountability. The question here is to ask whether this legislation has the balance right and frankly whether it will in the end actually speed things up and at what costs. Or better, can we not - should we not - find ways to go much faster without sacrificing democratic values and constitutional obligations. We will explore some ideas in a couple of days.
Thank-you for the information.
This leads me to couple more questions and a couple observations.
Why, if the current War Measures Act has "a higher level level of accountability", are we not invoking it?
Your wording indicates to me, that you don't think it's of adequate value. Why?
The negative response the last time it was invoked was mostly, in my opinion, by those on the Wrong Side of the issues.
Could it be, that a larger number of Canadian's than the fringe that's always around, would rather have Freedom To, than Freedom From?
Freedom To; do whatever I want, whenever I want, to whomever I want, without any repercussions whatsoever.
Or
Freedom from; hunger, homelessness, disease, discrimination, you know... all those things most of us recognize as necessary to live a good life.
The latter Freedom requires that we need good governance which requires, heaven forbid it appears, responsible citizenship.
I prefer the latter. It results in a system that doesn't require perfectly written laws so you can walk away from it and get on with your good life.
The perfect law does not exist. However, when people are responsible citizen's, when debate does arise, we remember what we what we intended of the words voted into being, because we were in the original debate. We can remind those who are varying from that intention and add to the words, to clarify, not muddy, our intentions as necessary.
If we really want to be lazy, and free to, we shall reap what we sow.
Look south to that sad crop to see our future in about twenty years.
if you want a useful look at the good and not so good but mostly impressive war effort have a look at A Good War by Seth Klein. He makes the case that a similar effort might be in order in the war to address the climate crisis. We pretty much know what that mission would look like. And we knew what had to be built in the war effort. But we have learned a thing or two, or should have, since then and we have also learned the high cost of ignoring Constitutional obligations (eg informed consent of Indigenous people) and much depends on the projects selected - imagine how you’d feel if you think the projects selected will do more harm than good. If you’re saying that we ought to be willing to make some compromises and support some tough decisions, no question - but we should have a full airing of the risk and the trade offs and assure ourselves that we haven’t sacrificed core democratic values or ignored constitutional obligations - we must not but we also need not
Canada is communist with maple characteristics let me explain:
https://open.substack.com/pub/soberchristiangentlemanpodcast/p/s2-ep-56-process-is-the-punishment?r=31s3eo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I understand your concerns but Nation Building is urgent and consultations have been going on for years to no avail. At some point, there will have to be agreements or a push towards an agreement….we can’t wait another ten years for the First Nations and Provincial consultation processes to unfold. We have to drop the fear and hesitation and get moving!
You make it seem like democracy and respect for our Constitutional obligations are what stands in our way and so it’s ok to gut them - to sideline parliament, forego transparency and accountability and short circuit our obligations to Indigenous people - but surely nation building should be guided by values of democracy, equity, sustainability and Indigenous reconciliation. Of course we should speed up approval but we are convinced that taking a little bit more time up front would help us get the balance right and save time at the back end. We could specify in law the criteria for national interest - wouldn’t slow things down. We could use less ambiguous language on Indigenous consent and the sunset provision. Might actually speed things up. We could require time limited parliamentary review of decisions and require the government to provide written reasons. We could require a comprehensive review of how the government used the sweeping powers the bill grants. But we won’t. You have to ask would you be as sanguine whatever government was in power, even a government you’d never vote for?
You should be in government, putting forward your ideas about this bill. Everyone deserves to be heard.
I would like to publish this letter in regard to Bill C-5 and biodiversity and Indigenous Leadership. Can all please help and subscribe follow The NANAVERSE Project - Miigwech
https://substack.com/@ianbrodiebrown/note/c-126374250?r=51zv6o&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action