Thank you.

Members of the committee, at a time of global disruption, Canada's sovereignty and resilience must be protected and strengthened. This includes investments in nation-building efforts that reinforce our ability to act in the public interest. In this effort, environmental and health sovereignty cannot be dissociated from Canadian public values.

The committee has heard conflicting views over the last days on if and how these values are reflected in Bill C-5. This in itself reinforces the highly problematic nature of the rapid-fire study of a bill that has profound implications for Canadians and for the democratic rights of indigenous and provincial governments to protect public and environmental health.

Government representatives have stated that Bill C-5 is not intended to lower health, safety or environmental standards, but intentions are not law. In a country governed by the rule of law, public policy must be defined by clear statutory language, not verbal assurances. If the goal is truly to maintain or raise standards across jurisdictions, that commitment must be explicitly written into the bill through critical amendments to both parts 1 and 2.

The David Suzuki Foundation shares concerns raised by Ecojustice and West Coast Environmental Law on part 2 of the bill in their Senate testimonies. Part 2 of the bill is an unprecedented threat to indigenous sovereignty and the constitutional balance between federal and provincial authority, and we have jointly submitted to the committee a list of priority amendments to the building Canada act.

Part 1 of the bill, the trade and mobility act, aims to facilitate internal trade by codifying automatic mutual recognition of goods, services and occupational credentials across provinces and territories. It is also problematic.

While Bill C-5's goal of administrative efficiency is understandable, it must not come at the sacrifice of public and environmental health. This is exactly the essence of both parts 1 and 2 of the bill. Currently, both parts not only undermine the implementation of national and provincial law and standards, they threaten the ability of indigenous nations, provinces and territories to uphold measures tailored to their unique public interest concerns. Without amendments, the bill jeopardizes federal, provincial and territorial authority to regulate in the public interest, especially on matters of environmental protection and health.

Canada already has an internal trade regime under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. Chapter 2 of that agreement allows governments to maintain regulatory measures that pursue legitimate objectives, including health and environmental protection; however, those measures are subject to strict conditions. They must not be more trade-restrictive than necessary and must not create disguised barriers to trade. These standards can already be challenging for provinces to meet. Bill C-5 adds a new layer of risk. For example, by turning mutual recognition into a statutory obligation, the bill potentially elevates interprovincial trade access into a de facto right, one that companies could use to bypass or even challenge legitimate, democratically adopted local, provincial and federal protections.

While part 1 includes a commitment to protecting health, safety and the environment while removing federal barriers to trade, the reliance on undefined, comparable requirements between jurisdictions sets a weaker standard than equivalency. This vague, overly broad benchmark risks sidelining stronger federal, provincial and territorial protections in the name of trade facilitation.

Rather than mimic the United States' approach to ruling by decree, diminishing the rule of law and suppressing public debate, Bill C-5 should confront threats to Canadian sovereignty by reinforcing indigenous nations' inherent and treaty rights, constitutional provincial authority, democratic processes and the environmental rule of law, all of which underpin our federation.

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides a strong example of how high environmental protection can be a central component of removing barriers to trade and fostering a single market. Bill C-5 should be amended to explicitly exclude environmental health and safety standards from the mutual recognition framework. The bill should be amended to explicitly uphold the most protective requirements and allow for only federal recognition of equivalent provincial and territorial requirements.

Canada's federal model is built on shared sovereignty and regulatory pluralism. Bill C-5 in its current form threatens to override both. Economic mobility and interprovincial co-operation are worthy goals, but they must not come at the cost of environmental degradation, weakened public health safeguards or diminished indigenous jurisdiction.

Thank you. I'm happy to respond to any questions.