There are deeply worrying features for the environment, Indigenous reconciliation, and indeed democracy in the Building Canada Act that the federal government wants to enact in its new Bill C-5.
Thank you for the analysis. I sure hope Carney’s government respects the environment and indigenous rights. Carney has been noticed to be a centrist leaning to the right, which pleases the conservatives on the whole. They have not fought back as of yet. Both Carney and his wife are for the environment, but will the environment be put on hold until these building projects are done? Building does mean ripping up land, accessing areas yet untouched. We have a lot of space here in Canada. Can the ripping up be done carefully and with indigenous consent?
I believe if anyone has read PM Carney's book "VALUES: Building A Better World for All" or read and watched Diana Fox Carney's ideas and viewpoints (e.g., The South Hampstead Speaker Series) on the environment and indigenous rights, you might be better reassured that Carney is definitely not a Doug Ford. I believe that the PM's ethics, values, and integrity underpin his actions in a positive vision for our entire country- all of us! He needs the tools and the mandate, not the roadblocks and naysayers. ❤️🇨🇦
I want to agree with you, however, the wording on these bills and the timeline they are in effect don’t completely jibe with these values. I keep asking myself if the Conservative Party gets into power next what will these bills mean for Canadians.
I’m sorry, good intentions and idealistic writings are not a reason to accept bad legislation. This article presents a very cogent argument that both the provincial and federal acts are remarkably similar in approach, seeking to weaken or eliminate indigenous rights as well as environmental protections in order to fast-track projects these governments support. If Carney is not Doug Ford, why does he need to have these powers? Follow normal process including prior and informed consent and there will be no need to risk confrontation and excessive delays.
I’m not sure what the concern is with BCA 5.(7) — it seems to confirm the obligation of the minister to perform the statutory consultations with indigenous peoples, consultations which the throne speech specifies as free, prior & informed, and which the preamble states would be in line with UNDRIP.
Is it that all the words aren’t all in one single place in the bill?
You’re right that the preamble affirms what the Speech From The Throne said and that’s to the good. But the wording in the Bill, that is the part that actually creates statutory obligations on the government, appears to give the government very wide latitude in defining the obligation to consult. If indeed the issue is simply one of drafting there’s plenty of opportunity to fix it.
I’m inclined to give PM Carney credit for wanting to get this right — I don’t think he wants to leave any backdoors that a future (Con) government might use to avoid such responsibilities.
I get that - and you’re right that to extent that there are broad new powers we can never predict how future governments might use them whatever the current intent.
One bill (Ford’s) is written to allow personal profits.
The other bill is not.
The article also takes opinion based liberties and makes it own conclusions. I don’t personally interpret ANY of the text the same way the writer does.
"To the extent possible" is a dangerous caveat. Firstly because First Nations land holder rights and environmental protection are more important than our "first world standard of living" and additionally because giving Doug Ford (for a perfect example) the power to make that choice without Parliamentarian oversight means that Indigenous rights and environmental protection will always be made to give way to corporate profits.
Thank you for the article. Carney is a clear advocate for the environment. He is intelligent, measured, and hopefully he can hold his own in a principled manner while leading his party to unite the country and stabilize our economy and then improve it.
Where in this article does it indicate what the reader should do if opposed to this writing (the specific clause of issue) of this legislation? Links? letters to MPs? etc.? - I think it is misleading to lump these two bills together (and thus the two individuals, Ford and Carney). Why not keep stuff separate, or what about BC's bill - Bill 15? Are you asking busy Canadians to read stuff with sensationalized headlines, with no action outlined, if indeed action would be useful? There seems there could be a way to fix this one clause - so why not focus on how that could happen?
These days everyone, every system, every company, says, "we will ask for more, because we think we can" - there needs to be push back on that.
First Nations, Metís People, and Inuit people should have representatives as part of each and every Government, Provincial and Federal - Indigenous leaders, chosen through a democratic process, have a wealth of knowledge and perspective which can revolutionize Canada's approach to economy, and build stronger systems across the Board. Nature is not, primarily, a resource. Indigenous people know this, and generally, ideologically, respect nature (and human and other than human kin).
We need this wisdom to be a part of steering our country toward health and wealth that is relational. $$ mean nothing on deathbeds if it has not, or does not, transform life for the better for every living child, every community, and all of life, for 7 generations.
Transformation does not come from going backwards in time to restrictive, exclusionary, fear-based decision making. 2025 and forward needs transformation, not the status quo. Everything is together and you can't throw out what you don't relate to, to select a direction that you think will work for the "average." Leaders need to lead for all. There are many ways to do that that work as other countries have demonstrated admirably (even those with far fewer "natural resources"). Government: Please take the best minds input, do the research efficiently and with alacrity, have problem solving town halls across the country, engage people's hearts and minds, see what can best be adapted for Canada's purpose. Communicate. Consult meaningfully. Collaborate. Thank you.
I will be ashamed of our Liberal government if they don’t fix the weaknesses in this legislation. The legislation must fit Canada, whether or not it is a liberal or conservative government.
In light of the current technology, national and international crises, I’m in favor of NECESSARY restraints on personal privacy.
I’m not in favor of resource development for short range gain at the expense of our environment (long-term health of the nation, it’s people and it’s natural assets.)
Thanks for this critical analysis of the C-5 bill. Are we using Trump and his Executive Orders as the operating model for dealing with Canada's urgencies of the hour? Endangered species and the Indian Act can be over-ridden by the deemed urgency of the hour. What about the treaty rights of the Indigenous Peoples and the Crown's obligations in those treaties. Will the Crown/Fed Gov't honour both its commitments and obligations, as well as the UNDRIP provisions? Does this not call for a new multi-party structure to ensure that all legal voices are at the table to speed Canada into a new way of building but with due regard for the rights, privileges, and obligations of all parties. Don't let our haste make waste or worse!!
We are back where we started so long ago. Our indigenous peoples who occupy every province and territory in Canada, living in some of the most challenging areas of Canada are again being pushed out of the process of what is a better option, better dialogue, and what is best for the country. I am truly sorry that many do not understand or even try to understand the voice of our indigenous peoples. They know this country far better than most Canadians and are looking for a way to retain, nurture and keep Canada in tune with its pristine lands, and how each part if our environment supports and feeds us all. The governments are not looking at Canada being sustainable they are looking at how to take advantage of what is out there, dig it, fish it, chop it down, poison the water, in other words destroy what is the heart and soul of this country, which is our resources. Looking only short term, few will gain really well, the rest of us rarely are part if the gain and are left to clean up a mess and a destruction of some of the most beautiful
and sustainable environment and ecology in the world. This I guess is where truth is being spoken to power. My hope is that all governments listen carefully and openly to the voices of those looking for long term sustainability, and renewal instead of monetary gain. Canada and its people are much better than this. Not listening to the first peoples and all people in Canada can only lead to hurt everywhere and a country which will be unable to support us. Canada must honour and keep its promises to the indigenous peoples and each citizen and future citizen of this great, wonderful, full of life country that I call home.
This is a side bar. This piece us how I feel, and you are free to agree or disagree. At this time in the worlds history we need to think beyond who and what we are on this earth abd struve every day to make it a better place for all. That means people, the birds, the animals, the fish in streams, rivers, lakes and oceans, insects, and everything that lives, trees, plants, flowers. Losing these things would destroy my heart and soul. There is so much more to Canada and being Canadian than natural resources for monetary gain. Thank you to all who have read this.
THANK YOU for sharing this. I've only been paying loose attention this past week but I was worried Carney was starting to sound like DoFo. I've noticed he seems like he needs some Truth and Reconciliation training. When he said he talked to the "owners of Canada " it was pretty jarring. I'm not an "owner" of Canada - I'm an uninvited guest and a Treaty person, just like Carney. I get that he had to use the kind of language his orange audience would understand, but my understanding of true Reconciliation and allyship is that it's not part-time. I hope he doesn't let those of us eho voted for his party down.
Where are the solutions? I signed the Pledge because it laid out a number of laudable principles and generally promoted “working together” to find solutions in troubling, difficult times. While the most recent and previous posts have pointed out important points, the drift is oppositional. That’s depressing. Why not make it mandatory in all posts to require that the author or another person (in the same post) to suggest equal attention to resolution. Not at the level of “this must be taken into account” but sober second thought on how national or provincial goals can move forward taking into account the often set aside realms such as climate, indigenous rights and interests, and the setting of precedents for future governance.
Ford’s Bill 5 and Carney’s Bill C-5, two peas in a pod?
I’ve been reading your long explanation regarding Bill 5 from the Ontario Legislature and Indigenous rights under the Canadian Charter, which defines the very fabric of our country.
At my age, I’ve witnessed endless waves of demands—from the left and the right: social rights, workers' rights, gay rights, the right to strike, the right to protest on public roads, abortion rights, and more. But what about Joe’s rights? I can’t even watch TV anymore without reporters pointing fingers at the average citizen, blaming him for being alive, and condemning him for all the world’s problems.
This morning, I’m outraged. These laws, many written centuries ago, could never have anticipated the challenges progress would bring. Often, they end up infringing on someone else’s rights. Back then, the press wasn’t always present—or when it was, it was biased—and yet time kept ticking, silently witnessing a world being turned upside down, all in the name of motivating humans to find new paths forward.
Put yourself in a politician’s chair. You’d have to vote (or abstain) on new laws, decide how to allocate billions of dollars, and somehow please everyone, while respecting the law and your duty in Parliament. That’s no easy task.
Frankly, my dreams would have turned into nightmares—ulcers, divorce, depression—because you’d always end up stepping on someone’s toes to move Canada forward. The alternative? Doing nothing, like too many past politicians who lacked the imagination to face the changing times. And now, the future has caught up with us.
Look around. enemies of yesterday are now our friends, and sadly, the reverse is also true. We’re forced to make hard decisions. Toe-stepping is now on the agenda. And those who sit idly behind treaties and paper promises must prepare to take a stand. Like it or not, Canadians are fed up. Injuries will happen. Transgressions will occur. But we cannot allow progress to be paralyzed—whether by a picket line or a teepee. We must face reality, or we risk dying as a country.
The brutal truth is this: money may override our values. That’s life. Domination has always been the goal of autocracies, and many are now eyeing Canada’s natural wealth. They will make unlawful moves—but let’s be honest: watching a limping duck is still a duck.
Bill C5 tosses Parliamentary procedure into the trash. If there is a problem with environmental or indigenous legislation, then that legislation should be changed by way of parliamentary vote, not ignored. Bill C5 could extend to other legislation not mentioned within the proposed bill. Very dangerous precedent, and one more reason Alberta has to leave Canada.
Separation is a citizens' initiative and you have every right to say, "No." What is it that you fear? What will you lose?
Normally people fear loss. Staying within a losing proposition (Canada) is a huge loss, so your fear may be misdirected.
We must change since Canada will not. Alberta is treated as, a colony of Eastern Canada and they will never give up that edge.
You can't think back to what it once was, because staying in Canada will never be like it once was, but Alberta, as a new Republican style nation, would be far better than Canada ever was.
Way too long and too complicated. If you wanted people to read it you need to be much more concise and clearer. So, in the end, I stopped reading. I get that it's not perfect and I will try and find a better way to figure out what you were trying to say. We can't have it both ways though. Do we want fast or do we want to take years so that we dot all the i and t's. I've worked in the government and you can choose one or the other. They both have huge drawbacks so you need to decide which are more important. Now, if we could figure out what you were trying to say, that would help.
I'm surprised that you don't include BC'S Bill 15, a very similar bill crammed through juts as Ontario's Bill 5 was. As a BC resident I feel quite disempowered by this legislation.
Thank you for the analysis. I sure hope Carney’s government respects the environment and indigenous rights. Carney has been noticed to be a centrist leaning to the right, which pleases the conservatives on the whole. They have not fought back as of yet. Both Carney and his wife are for the environment, but will the environment be put on hold until these building projects are done? Building does mean ripping up land, accessing areas yet untouched. We have a lot of space here in Canada. Can the ripping up be done carefully and with indigenous consent?
I think you’ve put this well. I don’t doubt the care for the environment as you suggest but the question as you rightly put it is whether given the other crises we face environment is put on the back “burner” and that would be a mistake https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/john-vaillant-mark-carney-should-understand-better-than-anyone-why-canada-is-burning-heres-how/article_13d33b95-719a-40c2-813f-96f3ab1948b9.html
I believe if anyone has read PM Carney's book "VALUES: Building A Better World for All" or read and watched Diana Fox Carney's ideas and viewpoints (e.g., The South Hampstead Speaker Series) on the environment and indigenous rights, you might be better reassured that Carney is definitely not a Doug Ford. I believe that the PM's ethics, values, and integrity underpin his actions in a positive vision for our entire country- all of us! He needs the tools and the mandate, not the roadblocks and naysayers. ❤️🇨🇦
I want to agree with you, however, the wording on these bills and the timeline they are in effect don’t completely jibe with these values. I keep asking myself if the Conservative Party gets into power next what will these bills mean for Canadians.
I’m sorry, good intentions and idealistic writings are not a reason to accept bad legislation. This article presents a very cogent argument that both the provincial and federal acts are remarkably similar in approach, seeking to weaken or eliminate indigenous rights as well as environmental protections in order to fast-track projects these governments support. If Carney is not Doug Ford, why does he need to have these powers? Follow normal process including prior and informed consent and there will be no need to risk confrontation and excessive delays.
I’m not sure what the concern is with BCA 5.(7) — it seems to confirm the obligation of the minister to perform the statutory consultations with indigenous peoples, consultations which the throne speech specifies as free, prior & informed, and which the preamble states would be in line with UNDRIP.
Is it that all the words aren’t all in one single place in the bill?
You’re right that the preamble affirms what the Speech From The Throne said and that’s to the good. But the wording in the Bill, that is the part that actually creates statutory obligations on the government, appears to give the government very wide latitude in defining the obligation to consult. If indeed the issue is simply one of drafting there’s plenty of opportunity to fix it.
Fair.
I’m inclined to give PM Carney credit for wanting to get this right — I don’t think he wants to leave any backdoors that a future (Con) government might use to avoid such responsibilities.
I get that - and you’re right that to extent that there are broad new powers we can never predict how future governments might use them whatever the current intent.
No.
Everything Ford does is to further enrich himself and his corporate buddies.
Everything Carney does is ACTUALLY for the benefit of Canada’s future
One bill (Ford’s) is written to allow personal profits.
The other bill is not.
The article also takes opinion based liberties and makes it own conclusions. I don’t personally interpret ANY of the text the same way the writer does.
But comparing two Bills, not two leaders.
"To the extent possible" is a dangerous caveat. Firstly because First Nations land holder rights and environmental protection are more important than our "first world standard of living" and additionally because giving Doug Ford (for a perfect example) the power to make that choice without Parliamentarian oversight means that Indigenous rights and environmental protection will always be made to give way to corporate profits.
Thank you for the article. Carney is a clear advocate for the environment. He is intelligent, measured, and hopefully he can hold his own in a principled manner while leading his party to unite the country and stabilize our economy and then improve it.
Where in this article does it indicate what the reader should do if opposed to this writing (the specific clause of issue) of this legislation? Links? letters to MPs? etc.? - I think it is misleading to lump these two bills together (and thus the two individuals, Ford and Carney). Why not keep stuff separate, or what about BC's bill - Bill 15? Are you asking busy Canadians to read stuff with sensationalized headlines, with no action outlined, if indeed action would be useful? There seems there could be a way to fix this one clause - so why not focus on how that could happen?
These days everyone, every system, every company, says, "we will ask for more, because we think we can" - there needs to be push back on that.
First Nations, Metís People, and Inuit people should have representatives as part of each and every Government, Provincial and Federal - Indigenous leaders, chosen through a democratic process, have a wealth of knowledge and perspective which can revolutionize Canada's approach to economy, and build stronger systems across the Board. Nature is not, primarily, a resource. Indigenous people know this, and generally, ideologically, respect nature (and human and other than human kin).
We need this wisdom to be a part of steering our country toward health and wealth that is relational. $$ mean nothing on deathbeds if it has not, or does not, transform life for the better for every living child, every community, and all of life, for 7 generations.
Transformation does not come from going backwards in time to restrictive, exclusionary, fear-based decision making. 2025 and forward needs transformation, not the status quo. Everything is together and you can't throw out what you don't relate to, to select a direction that you think will work for the "average." Leaders need to lead for all. There are many ways to do that that work as other countries have demonstrated admirably (even those with far fewer "natural resources"). Government: Please take the best minds input, do the research efficiently and with alacrity, have problem solving town halls across the country, engage people's hearts and minds, see what can best be adapted for Canada's purpose. Communicate. Consult meaningfully. Collaborate. Thank you.
I don’t think we have time for town halls on C5.
I will be ashamed of our Liberal government if they don’t fix the weaknesses in this legislation. The legislation must fit Canada, whether or not it is a liberal or conservative government.
In light of the current technology, national and international crises, I’m in favor of NECESSARY restraints on personal privacy.
I’m not in favor of resource development for short range gain at the expense of our environment (long-term health of the nation, it’s people and it’s natural assets.)
Thanks for this critical analysis of the C-5 bill. Are we using Trump and his Executive Orders as the operating model for dealing with Canada's urgencies of the hour? Endangered species and the Indian Act can be over-ridden by the deemed urgency of the hour. What about the treaty rights of the Indigenous Peoples and the Crown's obligations in those treaties. Will the Crown/Fed Gov't honour both its commitments and obligations, as well as the UNDRIP provisions? Does this not call for a new multi-party structure to ensure that all legal voices are at the table to speed Canada into a new way of building but with due regard for the rights, privileges, and obligations of all parties. Don't let our haste make waste or worse!!
We are back where we started so long ago. Our indigenous peoples who occupy every province and territory in Canada, living in some of the most challenging areas of Canada are again being pushed out of the process of what is a better option, better dialogue, and what is best for the country. I am truly sorry that many do not understand or even try to understand the voice of our indigenous peoples. They know this country far better than most Canadians and are looking for a way to retain, nurture and keep Canada in tune with its pristine lands, and how each part if our environment supports and feeds us all. The governments are not looking at Canada being sustainable they are looking at how to take advantage of what is out there, dig it, fish it, chop it down, poison the water, in other words destroy what is the heart and soul of this country, which is our resources. Looking only short term, few will gain really well, the rest of us rarely are part if the gain and are left to clean up a mess and a destruction of some of the most beautiful
and sustainable environment and ecology in the world. This I guess is where truth is being spoken to power. My hope is that all governments listen carefully and openly to the voices of those looking for long term sustainability, and renewal instead of monetary gain. Canada and its people are much better than this. Not listening to the first peoples and all people in Canada can only lead to hurt everywhere and a country which will be unable to support us. Canada must honour and keep its promises to the indigenous peoples and each citizen and future citizen of this great, wonderful, full of life country that I call home.
This is a side bar. This piece us how I feel, and you are free to agree or disagree. At this time in the worlds history we need to think beyond who and what we are on this earth abd struve every day to make it a better place for all. That means people, the birds, the animals, the fish in streams, rivers, lakes and oceans, insects, and everything that lives, trees, plants, flowers. Losing these things would destroy my heart and soul. There is so much more to Canada and being Canadian than natural resources for monetary gain. Thank you to all who have read this.
THANK YOU for sharing this. I've only been paying loose attention this past week but I was worried Carney was starting to sound like DoFo. I've noticed he seems like he needs some Truth and Reconciliation training. When he said he talked to the "owners of Canada " it was pretty jarring. I'm not an "owner" of Canada - I'm an uninvited guest and a Treaty person, just like Carney. I get that he had to use the kind of language his orange audience would understand, but my understanding of true Reconciliation and allyship is that it's not part-time. I hope he doesn't let those of us eho voted for his party down.
Where are the solutions? I signed the Pledge because it laid out a number of laudable principles and generally promoted “working together” to find solutions in troubling, difficult times. While the most recent and previous posts have pointed out important points, the drift is oppositional. That’s depressing. Why not make it mandatory in all posts to require that the author or another person (in the same post) to suggest equal attention to resolution. Not at the level of “this must be taken into account” but sober second thought on how national or provincial goals can move forward taking into account the often set aside realms such as climate, indigenous rights and interests, and the setting of precedents for future governance.
Yes, I find this discussion informative, and educational.
But It’s frustrating, without proposed solutions.
Ford’s Bill 5 and Carney’s Bill C-5, two peas in a pod?
I’ve been reading your long explanation regarding Bill 5 from the Ontario Legislature and Indigenous rights under the Canadian Charter, which defines the very fabric of our country.
At my age, I’ve witnessed endless waves of demands—from the left and the right: social rights, workers' rights, gay rights, the right to strike, the right to protest on public roads, abortion rights, and more. But what about Joe’s rights? I can’t even watch TV anymore without reporters pointing fingers at the average citizen, blaming him for being alive, and condemning him for all the world’s problems.
This morning, I’m outraged. These laws, many written centuries ago, could never have anticipated the challenges progress would bring. Often, they end up infringing on someone else’s rights. Back then, the press wasn’t always present—or when it was, it was biased—and yet time kept ticking, silently witnessing a world being turned upside down, all in the name of motivating humans to find new paths forward.
Put yourself in a politician’s chair. You’d have to vote (or abstain) on new laws, decide how to allocate billions of dollars, and somehow please everyone, while respecting the law and your duty in Parliament. That’s no easy task.
Frankly, my dreams would have turned into nightmares—ulcers, divorce, depression—because you’d always end up stepping on someone’s toes to move Canada forward. The alternative? Doing nothing, like too many past politicians who lacked the imagination to face the changing times. And now, the future has caught up with us.
Look around. enemies of yesterday are now our friends, and sadly, the reverse is also true. We’re forced to make hard decisions. Toe-stepping is now on the agenda. And those who sit idly behind treaties and paper promises must prepare to take a stand. Like it or not, Canadians are fed up. Injuries will happen. Transgressions will occur. But we cannot allow progress to be paralyzed—whether by a picket line or a teepee. We must face reality, or we risk dying as a country.
The brutal truth is this: money may override our values. That’s life. Domination has always been the goal of autocracies, and many are now eyeing Canada’s natural wealth. They will make unlawful moves—but let’s be honest: watching a limping duck is still a duck.
Regards,
André Paradis
1500 Monté Monette E415,
Laval, Qc
H7M OA9
514-572-3410
greyfox2nd@gmail.com
Very Frightening
Bill C5 tosses Parliamentary procedure into the trash. If there is a problem with environmental or indigenous legislation, then that legislation should be changed by way of parliamentary vote, not ignored. Bill C5 could extend to other legislation not mentioned within the proposed bill. Very dangerous precedent, and one more reason Alberta has to leave Canada.
Joking right? I'm 4th genand AIN'T GOING. To what? Smithlandia? No. No.no.
Separation is a citizens' initiative and you have every right to say, "No." What is it that you fear? What will you lose?
Normally people fear loss. Staying within a losing proposition (Canada) is a huge loss, so your fear may be misdirected.
We must change since Canada will not. Alberta is treated as, a colony of Eastern Canada and they will never give up that edge.
You can't think back to what it once was, because staying in Canada will never be like it once was, but Alberta, as a new Republican style nation, would be far better than Canada ever was.
Thank you for writing this. I will be more active in voicing my concerns.
Way too long and too complicated. If you wanted people to read it you need to be much more concise and clearer. So, in the end, I stopped reading. I get that it's not perfect and I will try and find a better way to figure out what you were trying to say. We can't have it both ways though. Do we want fast or do we want to take years so that we dot all the i and t's. I've worked in the government and you can choose one or the other. They both have huge drawbacks so you need to decide which are more important. Now, if we could figure out what you were trying to say, that would help.
I'm surprised that you don't include BC'S Bill 15, a very similar bill crammed through juts as Ontario's Bill 5 was. As a BC resident I feel quite disempowered by this legislation.
Will look at it.