CSN PRESS ROOM: CITIZEN PUSHBACK, NOTICE OF LIABILITY SERVED ON SENATORS RUSHING BILL C-5

Extended Press Release; List of Questions not being asked; Text of Citizen Actions

Press Release Notice Of Liability Served On Senators Re Rushing Bill C 5

185KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Questions Re: Free Trade And Labour Mobility

101KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

CITIZEN PUSHBACK, NOTICE OF LIABILITY SERVED ON SENATORS RUSHING BILL C-5

CSNews                                                                                                                            June 26, 2025                                                                                                            Contact H. Noerenberg  CanadianShareableNews@proton.me

As Bill C-5, known as the One Canadian Economy Act, is being fast-tracked through the Senate, critical citizens have put Speaker Hon. Raymonde Gagné on notice, explaining that a formal notification of liability will be submitted to her at a later date. The recording of the verbal notice of liability includes this message:

[Bill C-5] “poses grave constitutional risks including undermining the Canadian Bill of Rights and in particular, sections 1 & 2 and erasing municipal authority, Indigenous consultation and democratic protection due to all Canadians…. As Speaker you hold an important role in upholding the rule of law and protecting due process. If this bill [is passed] I wish to make it known to you and all senators involved, you may be held personally liable under both domestic and international legal standards for any harms resulting from this legislation.”

The full recording of the verbal notice can be heard here: https://x.com/MatthewPauly13/status/1937964736701710762 (See also the attached transcript and the text of a citizen action letter campaign below.)

On Wednesday, June 25, at the 2 pm sitting of the Senate eighteen reports were tabled for consideration by the Senators, many of these from Indigenous organizations across the country. Hon. Kim Pate cited former minister of justice and former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould who had earlier stated “Bill C-5 gives unchecked powers in a few officials, overrides laws of Parliament, & steamrolls constitutional rights. Our economy won’t grow by creating conditions of uncertainty & conflict... Our sovereignty is not protected by being anti-democratic.”

Without sufficient time to read and consider the content of the reports tabled, Senators agreed to proceed to third reading on the following day. Normally, Senate bills are referred for detailed study in committees and given the opportunity to consult with expert witnesses. The decision to bypass this step in the legislative process is being attributed by the citizens presenting the notice of liability to Hon. Sen Gagnon, the Speaker of the Senate.

During the third reading held on Thursday, June 26, only 28 Senators voted for a motion put forward by Hon. Paul Prosper (NS) not to proceed with third reading but rather to an amendment including Free Prior and Informed consent of the rights holders in jurisdictions in which projects of “national interest” are to be developed. https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/mikmaq-senator-stalls-controversial-bill/. This motion was defeated by 48 Senators, with 8 abstentions.

####

Bill C-5 “An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act” is made up of two parts:

a) Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada: reduces federal barriers to interprovincial trade and labour mobility within Canada

b) Building Canada Act: empowers the federal government to streamline the authorization process for projects that are considered “national interest projects”

Media reports on Bill C-5 to date have focussed on concerns over consultation with indigenous organizations in the part of the Bill dealing with development of projects in the national interest. Yet there have been nearly no reports addressing the streamlining of regulatory bodies that arise from the part of the Bill dealing with labour issues. (See attached as Canadian Shareable News highlights this gap in media reporting, sharing a list of unasked questions.)

See this live stream

https://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2?fk=10667220&globalStreamId=16.

The text of the bill is found here: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-5

Further media reports focusing on the lack of consultation with Indigenous peoples

Bill C-5 reveals fault lines between Ottawa and Indigenous peoples over consultation, consent (Emily Haws) Globe & Mail PUBLISHED JUNE 24, 2025

It’s up to the Senate – and maybe the Governor-General – to reverse Bill C-5 (Tanya Talaga) Globe & Mail PUBLISHED JUNE 24, 2025

‘Ass Backwards’: Canada’s New Legal Posture Post-Bill C-5 (Zoë Yunker) The Tyee June 24 2025

Senate Prepares to pass controversial Bill C-5 (Natasha Bulowski) June 25, 2025

New Canada Bill C-5 | One Canadian Economy | Full Explainer (Gagandeep Kaur Sekhon) June 20, 2025

The text of the message to Hon. Raymonde Gagné

Hello, my name is Connie Shields and I am a Canadian citizen calling from Fort McMurray, Alberta.

I first want to let you know that this call is being recorded and will be shared around Canada.

I am calling to urgently to express my concern regarding Bill C-5 and the unprecedented move to rush it through all Senate stages by Friday June 27.

This bill poses grave constitutional risks including undermining the Canadian Bill of Rights and in particular, sections 1 & 2 and erasing municipal authority, Indigenous consultation and democratic protection due to all Canadians.

The people of Canada have not been informed, consulted or even been given adequate time to respond.

This is not democracy, this is legislative coercion. As Speaker you hold an important role in upholding the rule of law and protecting due process.

If this bill proceeds [through third reading to passage]

I wish to make it known to you and all senators involved, you may be held personally liable under both domestic and international legal standards for any harms resulting from this legislation.

We are documenting this and you can consider that you have now been served notice, that you in fact may be held personally liable.

You will be receiving your formal notice of liability regarding your role in this review and debate and potential passing of Bill C-5.

There is still time to act with integrity. I am urging you to halt this forced passage of C-5 and allow full public review over the summer, with debate to resume in September.

Canada is watching and we the people will not forget how you vote on this

Thank you for you time and be aware, you have been served notice.

This is your notice of liability.

Formal notice to follow

Thank you.

The text of the citizen letter action:

[Dear Senator name,]

I write to you today with grave concern regarding Bill C-5, The One Canadian Economy Act, first read on June 6, 2025. Bill C-5 is a direct assault on the individual rights and autonomy of the people of Canada and represents an unconstitutional abrogation of the responsibilities of Canada’s government in favour of tyranny.

The Canadian Bill of Rights explicitly recognizes rights as pre-existing and therefore not subject to revocation by Parliament. Under the guise of “economic unity”, Bill C-5 is a direct threat to these pre-existing rights since it specifically attempts to supersede the Bill of Rights. C-5 must be stopped.

As a Canadian citizen, I urge you to reject Bill C-5 because it violates the entire structure of Canadian representative democracy. It is imperative to defeat C-5, and is now before you for passage and subsequent presentation to the Governor General for Royal Assent or Canada’s system of governance ceases to exist.

Prime Minister Carney and his allies are attempting to rush Bill C-5 through the senate by Friday June 27, but we expect the senate to quash this attempt to destroy Canadian governance rather than accede to a legislative ambush on a matter of this magnitude.

Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter.

VOTE NO on Bill C-5!

Text of an email to a Senator from a member of the Stop C-293 committee

Senator Richard Adams
New Brunswick

Dear Senator Adams

Bill C-5 The One Canada Economy Act must be STOPPED. PM Carney pushed the bill through the HoC on June 20, without due diligence.

Blacklock's Reporter Tom Korski wrote on Monday, June 23, Senate To Pass C-5 In A Rush by Friday.

The One Canada Economy Act overrides past government legislation as Supremacy law.

Senator Mary Jane McCallum says as per Henry VIII clauses the "government bypasses the role and function of Parliament."

C-5 violates Canadian Rights and Sovereignty.

Senator Housakos, Leader of the Senate Opposition realizes the impact of Bill C-5.

Concerned Canadians sent Speaker of the House Raymonde Gagne a 2:00 minute voice message. Please Listen and Share!

Senators of all sides are served notice.
https://x.com/MatthewPauly13/status/1937964736701710762?s=09

Thank you for standing tall as a noose is tightened around the neck of free speech in Canada. The result is Orwellian censorship.

xxxxxx

Stop C-293 Committee
@StopC293Comtee on X

Questions Re: Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act (part of Bill C-5)

https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-5/third-reading

A list of questions that appear not to have been asked by journalists, parliamentarians and others during the discussion of Bill C-5. Prepared for the CSN Press Room on Wednesday, June 25, 2025

Please note Question 10 about the bundling of the two Acts into one Bill;

Please also note Question 11 pointing at multiple differing descriptions of “the national interest” with in the same document. Surely such a crucial concept needs to be clearly defined before the 2 different Acts in C-5 are passed and implemented.

RE: federal regulatory body & provincial or territorial regulatory body 

Q1: Given that the Canadian Network of Agencies for Regulation (CNAR ) “connects Canada's provincial and national regulators, licensing boards, accrediting agencies, examining bodies, and government officials at all levels to discuss challenges, share ideas and develop best practices related to a wide range of issues relevant to organizations engaged in the self-regulation of professions and occupations.”

Will implementing Bill C-5 wipe out the functions of all of the provincial regulators, agencies, bodies, etc. and replace them with single national ones?

Q2: Assuming that in the case of provincial colleges of physicians and surgeons, will implementing Bill C-5 do away with separate Alberta, BC, SK, MB, NB, YK, etc. colleges and result in a SINGLE college for each profession? And given that in BC, there already is a set of regulations governing the medical profession, https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/bills/billsprevious/3rd42nd:gov36-3 , what is to prevent that BILL from being applied ACROSS THE COUNTRY? How can medical professionals be protected from the nation-wide implementation of draconian, undemocratic and “profession killing” legislation? THIS ALONE would be a key reason NOT to pass C-5 in its current form.

Q3: If there is to be a single regulatory body for each profession/Industry across the country..

• how do people have input so they can assure fair governance? We already have problems dealing with organizations based federally whose decision makers have no understanding of specific regional conditions. How does voting for this Bill help those who already note problems with federal overreach and the lack of local lived experience?

• How do we guard against regulatory capture and top-down dictates being implemented nation wide? Currently, if implementation is too drastic in one province, people have the opportunity to migrate to another province where working conditions are more optimal and restrictions less onerous. If an outside corporate “public private partnership” can infiltrate the ONLY SINGLE REGULATOR for x profession in Canada, then are the members of that profession doomed to draconian, unfair oversight? What amendments to Bill C-5 can be made to guard against this? (For a current example, please listen to honest commentary on BC’s Bill 36. https://rumble.com/search/all?q=Bill%2036%20BC

Q4: THIS SECTION MUST BE CHANGED AND REWRITTEN FOR CLARITY.

Act and regulations prevail

3 The provisions of this Act and the regulations made under it prevail over the provisions of any other Act of Parliament and any regulations made under any other Act of Parliament to the extent of any conflict between them.

CURRENTLY it reads that Bill C-5 will supersede ANY OTHER FEDERAL ACT OF PARLIAMENT and the regulations made under any other ACT OF PARLIAMENT. Is this being left purposely vague and open-ended? Is the intention of this Bill to be LIMITED ONLY TO interprovincial trade, labour, etc.? Many people reading this Bill have highlighted this section and take it to be a club that can be pulled out at will and have the federal government throw its weight around about ANY topic of law.

Amend it to read what is intended.

i.e. When it comes to the promotion of free trade and labour mobility, the provisions of this Act and the regulations made under it, prevail over any previous Act of Parliament and any regulations that address the same topic, to the extent of any conflict between them.

Amend this part to include the bolded section:

4 The purpose of this Act is to promote free trade and labour mobility by removing federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada while continuing to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians, their social and economic well-being and the environment AND WHILE RESPECTING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS and the constitutional division of powers between the federal and provincial/territorial governments.

Q5: THIS SECTION MUST BE CHANGED AND REWRITTEN FOR CLARITY.

Designation of Minister

6 The Governor in Council may, by order, designate a member of the King’s Privy Council for Canada as the Minister for the purposes of this Act.

Since there is already a Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy, WHY have some other unspecified person (Governor in Council) designate a member of the King’s Privy Council (which includes retired, no longer elected Cabinet Ministers) as a Minister for the Purpose of this Act?

The minister of the portfolio to which this Act would belong “Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy” would be responsible for this act by virtue of having this portfolio… Canadians have learned from the Bill C-293 debacle that the federal government appoints far too many “arms length” bureaucrats into administrative positions where they are then safe from prosecution and accountability when they make decisions not reflected by the desires of the electorate. We are now very leery of instances in which “appointments” occur.

Q6:

Goods —> Comparable Requirements —> Decision and DITTO for Services

(3) The federal regulatory body responsible for the administration and enforcement of a federal requirement may decide, in accordance with subsection (2), whether a provincial or territorial requirement is comparable to the federal requirement.

So as asked in Q1 and Q2 - will provincial/territorial regulatory bodies be disbanded in order to be replaced by a single federal regulatory body? Assuming both tracks continue…suddenly this part entitled ‘Decision’ makes it appear that we will have a third layer (the federal one) working with the provincial/territorial one. Will this only be a temporary matter, until all commodity and service types will have been decided on once and for all, or will we now inadvertently be adding a duplicate permanent bureaucratic layer of salaries to pay, offices to staff, software to licence, etc. etc?

Q7: Labour Mobility

Recognition

While it is good that people trained in one field of work in one province can then have their training recognized in another without additional recertification, there is nothing in the current wording that accounts for the need to be fluent in French when working in a Francophone environment (in NB, NFLD, QB or elsewhere) Be sure to put something in this section carving out a working linguistic competence for communities in which not having that competence can lead to workplace hazards or generally would be an impediment to productive work.

Q8:

(2) Before recommending a regulation to the Governor in Council under paragraph (1)‍(a) in relation to a federal requirement or authorization, the Minister must consult the federal regulatory body responsible for the administration and enforcement of the federal requirement or for the issuance of the authorization.

This sounds like the Minister consults with existing federal regulatory bodies… When it comes to Health Canada’s regulatory work on health product approval, there have been VERY VERY many irregularities. Here, removing provincial regulators could be precarious IF THE PROVINCIAL REGULATORS had remained INDEPENDENT AND PROFESSIONAL. Tragically, from 2020 until now, they caved to compromised federal directives. This demonstrates that they were led by “followers” rather than by conscientious professionals. To be precise: there was much global evidence that longstanding antiviral medications could successfully be repurposed for SARS-CoV-2. Yet since Health Canada had become compromised through its funding arrangements with pharmaceutical manufacturers, it chose to abide by its Pfizer purchase contracts and DISALLOW other competent and successful medical treatments of patients presenting with COVID-19. Many Albertans reached out to the AB equivalent of PHAC to ask for these antivirals to be authorized in Alberta. Yet the provincial regulatory bodies did not make use of their own authorities and acted as an arm of the federal level AS IF THIS BILL HAD ALREADY PASSED.

You would NEVER trust a long bridge span to only hold on four pillars. You would always support it with many pillars. HAVING 12 INDEPENDENTLY FUNCTIONING REGULATORY BODIES at the provincial/territorial levels GUARDS AGAINS CORRUPTION OF THE WHOLE FEDERAL BRIDGE DECK. Likewise, having multiple pillars guards against the corruption of a single provincial/territorial pillar.

So, instead of pushing for economic expediency, realize that in certain domains (like medical regulation) we need a bulwark of different authorities to guard against corruption. Usually once delivered, medication supplies do not have to cross borders. Regulation re: transportation can make sense to harmonize into a national structure. But regulations around medication approval should stay as separate structures. That is not to say they cannot consult with each other and come to the same conclusions but they MUST NOT be incorporated into a single federal regulatory body.

Q9:

12 (1) Despite any other Act of Parliament, no civil action lies against His Majesty, a servant or agent of the Crown or a federal regulatory body in respect of anything done or omitted to be done, or purported to be done or omitted to be done, in good faith in the course of applying section 8, 9 or 10 or any regulations made for the purposes of any of those sections, including anything in relation to whether provincial or territorial requirements are comparable to federal requirements and the recognition and issuance of authorizations to practise an occupation

The above sounds like someone cannot be sued if they have done something “in good faith”. That is a catchall phrase that has to be firmed up and cannot stand as is. Dr. Tam may argue all she wants that all she did was done “in good faith” even though from 2020 until her recent retirement she was continually receiving letters from the public to teach her whatever it was that she was purporting not to know. We must provide more precision as to when an elected official cannot be sued. But purposefully IGNORING EVIDENCE after having promised to continually revise polices in keeping with where science leads is not acting ‘in good faith’. See page 6 here: https://r.8b.io/387157/assets/files/TAM_Letter_plus_email_intro.pdf.

Q10:

What is the point of putting both Acts into one Bill?

Given that the second Act (re: Building Canada) will be running into matters of constitutional and aboriginal authorizations, it is very likely that many separate considerations will need to be made (that cannot all be dealt with in a single week prior to the summer break)

The very fact that these two disparate matters have been combined into one bill has allowed crucial questions listed above to NOT even be asked, as they are vastly overshadowed by the “Building Canada Act”.

Q:11

4.‍1 (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, for the purposes of section 5, define national interest.

What are you expecting some unidentified, unelected, not yet appointed person to put forward as being “in the national interest”? THIS IS NOT SOMETHING TO BE OUTSOURCED for a later date and via a person whom you do not know.

Either “in the national interest” = what was already stated in the PREAMBLE:

“foster the development of economic and trade corridors,

connect different parts of the country and get goods to market,

strengthen Canada’s ability to trade,

create good-paying, unionized jobs, and

enhance the development of Canada’s natural resources as well as its energy production and infrastructure”

Or it is what is written right below that section

respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the rights set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

And upholding rigorous standards with respect to environmental protection;

Or it is something

that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence;

Or the list that appears a little lower in the bill:

(a) strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security;
(b) provide economic or other benefits to Canada;
(c) have a high likelihood of successful execution;
(d) advance the interests of Indigenous peoples; and
(e) contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.

OR do you mean this definition from the near the end of the Bill C-5 (IMPACT ASSESSMENT ACT)
Common good of Canada

(3) The review is to be based on the common good of Canada, assured in part by the pursuit of the objectives set out in section 4 relating to shared jurisdiction, public safety, national and international security, the quality of the environment, public health, transparency, public participation and the protection of the rights of Indigenous peoples and linguistic communities.

Or a combination of all five that the MPs and Senators determine on our behalf, but it is NOT TO BE LEFT as an open question for someone else to decide — someone you as Bill writers are not even selecting to speak on behalf of your (and our) interests…

Who knows, you might end up with someone who defines Canada’s national interest as follows:

• to seek a geopolitically neutral stance, for example be part of the non-aligned nations (pulling out of NATO, the UN & its subsidiaries and partners)

• To ensure that all young Canadians spend a total of 6 months of apprenticeship on working farms (possible during three 2 month sets of summer holidays after turning 15) or between semesters of post-secondary schooling. This would be to learn skills around small scale agricultural production and self-sufficiency

• To ensure that all citizens are regularly provided with balanced news and information channels and productions instead of with one-sided government-embracing stories that stunt their ability to practice critical thinking skills

• Etc.

By the way, it is great to see PUBLIC PARTICIPATION as part of the “public interest” definition. This would be another reason NOT TO RAM THIS BILL TO A CLOSE BY FRIDAY!!!! Just because PM Justin Trudeau chose to have such a long prorogation, does not mean we need to now squeeze everything into fewer days/weeks/months!!!

Q12:

WHY use the secretive Parliamentary Review Committee as described in the Emergencies Act, to decide anything for this Bill? What is to ensure that the “oath of secrecy” is not carried forward?

• (2) The Parliamentary Review Committee shall include at least one member of the House of Commons from each party that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in that House and at least the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Government Representative in the Senate, or his or her nominee, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, or his or her nominee, and the Leader or Facilitator who is referred to in any of paragraphs 62.4(1)(c) to (e) of the Parliament of Canada Act, or his or her nominee.

• Marginal note:
  Oath of secrecy
  (3) Every member of the Parliamentary Review Committee and every person employed in the work of the Committee shall take the oath of secrecy set out in the schedule.

Q13: (Re: Building Canada Act)

What is to prevent provincial/federal infighting resulting in the cancellation of a project?

4) If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project named in Schedule 1 is no longer in the national interest, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend that Schedule to delete the name and the description of the project.

So if, for example a provincial premier could become a thorn in the side of the federal government, could “national interest” projects in that province simply be deleted from the list?

What in the wording of the Act would prevent such ill-considered actions?

Q14:

Mention of the Conflict of interest Act - this is the best part of this new bill so far… Given that this Act has been around since 2006, what additional layers must one add onto Bill C-5 to ENSURE conflicts of interest are avoided? We are still struggling because of the lack of attention to conflicts of interests between the staff and advisory committees of PHAC around the mandates they issued. How can conflict of interest litigation become a real deterrent to mismanagement of one’s portfolio? (See for example in the public health context:

https://www.cccalliance.ca/?s=conflict%20of%20interst

.

According to this: “(b) every reporting public office holder, as defined in section 2 of that Act, who could be in a conflict of interest in relation to the proponent of the project has recused themselves under that Act to avoid the conflict” FOR SURE! There should be a minimum time frame, like “for at least 2 years after the completion of the project”

Q15: - What does this actually mean?

Consultation

(7) Before recommending that an order be made under any of subsections (1), (3) and (4), the Minister must consult with any other federal minister and any provincial or territorial government that the Minister considers appropriate and with Indigenous peoples whose rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 may be adversely affected by the carrying out of the project to which the order relates.

Assume the Minister sits down with elected representatives of a certain Indigenous people and they give the go-ahead under certain conditions. Then the Minster sits down with the hereditary chiefs and they raise objections proposing a completely different route. Then assume the Minster goes ahead with the original plan. Has the Minister fulfilled the requirement of having to consult with the local people if he/she does what he/she originally intend to do anyway? How can “consult” be reworded to really mean “be informed in one’s vision by the experiences, knowledge and advice of those who …. “?