Senator Mégie: In the same report by the Auditor General, we learned that applications from people coming from Haiti are almost automatically processed manually, which unduly increases processing times.

Could we simplify the immigration process in Canada to keep those processing times from becoming the equivalent of a death sentence for some asylum seekers?

Senator Housakos: Rapid decisions are welcome, but transparent, accountable decisions in Parliament are more welcome.

Senator Gold, we now know that another company that secured a contract with your government blew the whistle on the irregular practices associated with the GC Strategies and your government as early as September 2021. Why did your government ignore the warnings of these whistle-blowers and continue to outsource even more work to GC Strategies to the tune of an additional $17 million? Is that why your government also now refuses to cancel these unreasonable fines that were levied to Canadians through ArriveCAN? Is it because Liberal insiders just need to get paid?

Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that answer.

A lot needs to be done to address long wait times in emergency rooms across the country. We all know that. In my home province, patients are waiting, on average, over 5 hours in emergency rooms and over 18 hours on emergency room stretchers.

Cannabis-related emergency room visits have increased since legalization, in some cases by up to 20% with visits related to edible consumption.

Recognizing this may be a jurisdictional issue. What is the government doing to ensure that cannabis-related emergency room visits head in the right direction?

Senator Cormier: Thank you, senator Gold. It is a health issue and a matter of urgency, as you can understand.

Last Tuesday, October 17, 10 senators rose in this place to speak out against the growing hate targeting 2SLGBTQI+ communities, especially the trans community. Most of these senators urged the government to move forward with the development of the national anti-hate action plan announced in Budget 2023.

Senator Gold, when will this action plan finally be tabled?

Senator Bellemare: The federal government has signed on to the Global Deal, an initiative of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD. The Global Deal promotes social dialogue among trade unions, businesses and governments.

Can you tell us what concrete actions the government has taken in recent years to promote tripartite dialogue on skill development and employment insurance?

Senator Pate: One of the amendments that the Senate passed aimed to ensure that victims and witnesses subject to publication bans were informed about the effects of a publication ban and the circumstances where Bill S-12 permits disclosure of information subject to a publication ban.

As you mentioned, this amendment was removed in the other place. I wonder how the government is planning to ensure that those subject to publication bans, especially the most marginalized and disadvantaged, have the information that they need to know their rights, and to feel confident in exercising them — secure in the knowledge that they will not face criminal charges, which is part of what gave rise to this bill in the first place.

Senator Gold: It’s a very good question. I will answer the question, and then I will comment.

I don’t know exactly what measures might be taken going forward, whether it’s by the federal government, the Crowns or those responsible for the administration of justice. It is still the case — notwithstanding that the committee deleted the amendment — that victims and witnesses are informed of the nature of publication bans and procedures. I’ll certainly make inquiries. It’s an important question for the simple reason that it’s one thing for some of us — when provided with such information — to know how to navigate it. It’s not always obvious to others either because of the circumstances or the stress they are under, or their lack of access to the kind of resources that some of us are more privileged to have.

It’s a fair question, and it’s the government’s position that the objective of this was laudable. But there were concerns that were raised in the other place. I believe it was unanimous, Senator Pate — all members of the committee voted to delete it. I’ll certainly do some follow-up to find out what, if anything, is being done, and to bring forward your preoccupations — which I’m sure you will also continue to advance — to the attention of the relevant minister.

Senator Plett: I have a brief follow-up question. You’re right, Senator Gold; you called us all at noon. We let our critic know, but, clearly, in light of time, we didn’t let everybody know, although you told me very clearly you would be addressing it in the chamber, so everybody would know before we got to a vote. I thank you for that.

My question is — and you answered part of it — you said they sought a three-month extension. Did they get a three-month extension?

Senator Pate: Thank you very much for that, and I look forward to that information.

One of the other amendments that the Senate passed, and which was essentially negated in the other place, concerned section 672.501(4) of the Criminal Code, which you alluded to. This provision relates to publication bans that can be ordered by review boards charged with determining whether people are not criminally responsible for reasons related to mental health.

Though very similar to other publication bans under the Criminal Code, this type of publication ban was not touched by Bill S-12, and the Senate’s amendment aimed to help ensure that similar rules continue to apply to all forms of publication bans under the Criminal Code. You mentioned that the other place recommended further study, and I’m curious what the government is planning to do for outstanding publication ban provisions such as these in the Criminal Code that have not been updated to reflect the new changes proposed in Bill S-12.

Senator Boisvenu: Thank you, colleagues. I’ll try to read fast.

Take the recent case of a sex offender sentenced to three years and nine months in prison on April 11, 2023. Between January 7 and June 5, 2022, this man assaulted six women between the ages of 30 and 65. Those crimes were committed in the Quebec City region.

Imagine: three years and nine months for assaulting and traumatizing six women! Pardon me if I criticize our justice system for being so permissive, so soft on these criminals. No wonder the stats for sex crimes are so high. No wonder women choose not to report their attackers. According to 2015 data, 50% of women who have been sexually assaulted drop their case during legal proceedings. Add to that the number of women who do not report these crimes, which is also high; only one in ten women report. A mere one in thirty attackers will ever be sentenced to jail.

Honourable senators, the court gave the federal government until October 28, 2023, to respond. We were pressed for time when we studied this bill because the federal government waited six months to introduce it. That delay had a significant impact on our ability to study changes to the National Sex Offender Registry.

It is essential to take into account victims’ voices and to think about the lasting harm they have suffered. Laws and court decisions like this one can dissuade women from reporting assault, which is counterproductive in our fight to end violence against women.

The statistics clearly show that violence against women, particularly Indigenous women, is a major problem in Canada. It is imperative that our justice system reflect the urgent need to treat these crimes with the seriousness they deserve. Given the alarming statistics on violence against women, it is imperative that we strengthen our legislation. By requiring that only child sex offenders and repeat sex offenders be automatically included in the National Sex Offender Registry, Bill S-12 fails to properly address this urgent situation. Most victims of sex crimes are women, and it is fundamental that any man who is sentenced to more than two years for such crimes against a woman be automatically included in the registry.

I proposed an amendment to correct that and to call for the automatic registration of offenders sentenced to more than two years for sex crimes against women. Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected. I still do not understand why my colleagues on the Constitutional Affairs Committee made that decision on something that is so important for victims.

Some have suggested this might conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision, but let’s remember that it is not up to the Supreme Court to tell us how to do our legislative work. We must act courageously to keep women in our society safe. When we stand up for victims’ interests, we must be guided not by fear, but by courage, the same courage the victims show when they report their attackers.

We are about to pass Bill S‑12, but I’m deeply concerned that it will not be good enough to go up against crime in Canada, especially not crimes of violence against women. This bill doesn’t include necessary improvements to the National Sex Offender Registry, so it could end up making it possible for many attackers to victimize even more people.

I know what I’m talking about, because my own daughter, Julie, was the tragic victim of a sex offender. Our justice system was soft on him, and that is one of the factors that led to him committing that crime. In 2002, there was no registry, and, as a result, a predator who had just been released from jail was able to take my daughter’s life. I won’t even mention the sentence he got before that fatal attack, a sentence that essentially served as his licence to reoffend.

The safety of Canadian women should always take priority over an offender’s right to privacy. We must never underestimate the disastrous consequences of a sexual assault, which can sometimes escalate to femicide. I fear that one day, with this bill, we will regret our actions.

It is essential to recognize that the victims, often forgotten or ignored in the judicial process, deserve much more attention and support than just words of comfort. These women, scarred by events that are often traumatizing, need us to take well-reasoned action that reflects a true understanding of their suffering and their specific needs.

As committed and responsible members of our society, it is our duty to guarantee that each and every victim is treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. Thank you.

[English]

Senator Carignan: Leader, of course, the situation is even worse in some other provinces. Compared to last year, food bank use is up by over 44% in Newfoundland and Labrador and over 42% in Prince Edward Island. Ontario, however, has the largest annual increase at over 40%.

When we ask about the main reasons why people are using food banks this year, we are told that it is because of the cost of food and housing. The government has completely dropped the ball in these two sectors.

Leader, can you name the food products that came down in price at Thanksgiving, as your colleague Minister Champagne promised?

Hon. Bev Busson: Honourable senators, I rise today to share some thoughts about my journey last month to Newfoundland and Labrador, alongside my colleagues on the Fisheries and Oceans Committee, to study the effects of the out-of-control seal population on the Canadian fishery.

At the risk of stealing Senator Manning’s script, I want to tell you about the exceptional quality of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and their outstanding hospitality. It is often said that you will not find strangers there, only friends you haven’t yet met.

Nowhere does this ring truer than in the communities that our committee visited. Port de Grave, Senator Petten’s hometown, is one of those places that you would think only exists on a postcard. The port is adorned with beautiful fishing boats that dot the picturesque harbour. There, locals with hearts as big as the Atlantic Ocean itself told us stories about the now-defunct seal harvest and the destruction of the cod fishery. These stories were shared in a local tea house which had been closed for the season, but opened just for us. You could feel the warmth, hospitality and genuine kindness around the table. It almost felt like a family reunion with long-lost relatives.

This warm welcome to Port de Grave included an invitation to return in December, when all the boats in the harbour are lit with thousands of Christmas lights and the docks are transformed into a sparkling winter wonderland. I have it marked in my calendar.

I was surprised to learn that, in the 1930s, when the province was a British colony, its economy was in ruins. The price of fish had plummeted, and the government was bankrupt. In response to mismanagement and corruption, a violent riot ensued. The Colonial Building in St. John’s was targeted. Windows were shattered, doors were demolished and furniture was laid to waste.

In answer, the London-based government imposed an unelected colonial government led by Britain. Despite this affront to their rights, and perhaps because of their fierce independence, the vote to join Canada in 1949 succeeded by the slightest of margins.

Another highlight was the beautiful Home From the Sea, John C. Crosbie Sealers Interpretation Centre. There stands a lone statue depicting Reuban and Albert John Crewe, a father and son found frozen to death in each other’s arms during the 1914 sealing disaster, when a staggering 251 sealers died.

I can assure you that we worked hard, but the highlight of this trip came on the very last night when we were hosted at a “kitchen party” by Senator Petten. This unique experience came complete with fresh-caught halibut. Now, no kitchen party would be complete without some lively entertainment. Mark Manning, the son of Senator Manning and a talented musician and Juno nominee, added his voice to this unforgettable evening.

I end by thanking all of those who made the trip possible. Most of all, I thank the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for reminding me what real hospitality looks like. As they like to say, “Long may your big jib draw.”

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, on Tuesday morning in the other place, my colleague, MP Blaine Calkins, tabled a petition signed by more than 22,000 people, who are calling on the government to quickly pass Bill C-336, which was introduced by MP Gerald Soroka, and Bill S-266, which I introduced in this chamber on June 6.

I would like to remind you that, on September 16, 2021, Robert Keith Major, a known repeat sexual offender, murdered 24-year-old Mchale Busch and her 16-month old baby, Noah, in their home in Hinton, Alberta.

This dangerous criminal had very strict parole conditions, but despite the fact that he was prohibited from approaching areas where children could be found, he lived near an elementary school, near a park and in an apartment building where many families lived, including that of Cody McConnell.

I am asking you to put yourselves in this father’s shoes, even if it is just while I’m speaking. A father comes home from work to find his apartment building surrounded by police. They forbid him from returning to his apartment. He then learns, several hours later, that his baby was just found dead in a dumpster. Then, within the next few minutes, the police find his wife’s body near the baby’s.

Imagine learning that the murderer, a dangerous repeat sex offender unlawfully at large, lives right next door. How would you react? Probably in the same way that the family and friends of these innocent victims reacted when I met with them in Alberta last spring. The justice system failed in its duty to protect this mother and her child by quietly setting this dangerous and ruthless criminal free.

Colleagues, I want to ask you the following questions today: What use is a system that releases dangerous repeat sex offenders with very strict conditions if nobody bothers to check on them? Why does breaching those conditions carry absolutely no consequence for these repeat offenders? Why does the justice system keep secret the presence of repeat offenders in the apartment next door?

This is the textbook definition of a failure: the failure to protect the public, especially women and children, from these repeat offenders despite the fact that Canada has a charter that recognizes the right to protection.

The 22,000 petitioners call on the federal government to make it mandatory for convicted sex offenders to report to the nearest police station upon any change of residence, to immediately arrest any repeat offender who fails to do so and to create a special designation for dangerous sex offenders who prey on children and women.

Protecting the lives of Canadian women and children is not the responsibility of any one political party. That responsibility belongs to the legislators in Canada’s Parliament, who have the privilege and duty to pass laws to that effect.

Honourable senators, someone must be held responsible for monitoring and supervising these dangerous offenders on release who all too often, in Canada, go on to reoffend. The petitioners are asking you to assume that responsibility and urging you to pass Bill S-266 quickly.

Noah and Mchale paid with their lives for this failure. Today, the family has this question for you: How many more will have to pay that price? Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Wanda Thomas Bernard: Honourable senators, I am grateful to be able to rise today on this unceded Anishinaabe Algonquin territory to deliver this statement about Emancipation Day.

While some communities across our country have been celebrating Emancipation Day for over 160 years, the federal government, the Senate and the Province of Nova Scotia only officially recognized August 1 as Emancipation Day in 2021.

Acknowledging Emancipation Day is recognizing the existence of slavery in Canada. This is an important first step to help us remember, reflect, learn and engage with Black communities and acknowledge the harms of anti-Black racism that are rooted in the enslavement of our ancestors.

Each August, I am impressed with the number of government departments, organizations, workplaces, municipalities and individuals who plan special events, programs and activities; 2023 was no different. I saw weekend festivals, community walks, religious services, staff lunch-and-learn events and empowerment programs. The social work community has been actively engaged by organizing a series of “teach-ins.” It has been a privilege to work with the Canadian Association of Social Workers and the provincial Associations of Black Social Workers from Nova Scotia, Alberta and Saskatchewan on this series.

My office hosted the first teach-in on reparations for African‑Canadian seniors, based on the call to action in the Halifax Declaration.

This year, for Emancipation Day, I spoke to many community groups. To each group, I asked the question, “What’s next?” I heard so many responses that went beyond creating awareness. Many people stressed the need for apologies, reparations and ways to honour our collective past. We had conversations about ways to support Black Canadians beyond basic survival, and ways to create systemic change.

As I reflect on Emancipation Day 2023 and the work that lies ahead, I am encouraged by the collective sense of critical hope that continues to fuel our passion to fight for change.

Asante. Thank you.

Senator Plett: You and I did speak about this earlier, and I appreciate that. I don’t want my standing to ask you a question to be seen as an intention to delay things. I think we have shown that we are supportive, certainly, of the intent of this legislation, both in this place and in the other.

You’re absolutely right; not only did Senator Dennis Patterson ask that question in this chamber, but at our leaders’ meetings we have asked this question a number of times: Why could we not seek an extension? Why are we being asked to rush? We were constantly reminded we needed to rush, and so we did that.

You say they acted responsibly. I would suggest that being responsible would at least include telling us that they are trying, but they didn’t.

So why would they not have told us? Why would you not have told us? I accept that you maybe didn’t know. Why would the government not have told you, “We’re trying to seek an extension”?

And how much of an extension did they get? If this bill does not pass today, how much of an extension did they get? What is the deadline?

Senator Gold: Those are fair questions. Thank you for that.

The short answer to the latter part of the question is that the government sought a three-month extension, which was granted by the court yesterday in the latter part of the day. My office was informed of it midday today, and the first thing I did — as some of you would know, and I hope you shared it with your colleagues — was I spoke to all the leaders to inform them, and I also called Senator Dennis Patterson, who was the one who had raised this first. At the time he raised the question, I did not know that the government had sought an extension, and I still don’t know exactly when they made that decision.

But I can state with some confidence that when a request for such an extension is made, it does not come with an automatic date for the hearing, much less certainty of the conclusion. I strongly believe the government acted responsibly, as the deadline was approaching, to seek an extension — and they got it — in the event that circumstances in the other place, which are not always smooth sailing, were such that they couldn’t get it to us in time, or, indeed, whenever they could get it to us, we would not have time or the will to move quickly.

In that regard, I do also want to remind senators and thank them because when we did get the bill, and it was introduced in this place, I asked all leaders and all senators to study it properly, as we did — and we improved it — and to do so with dispatch so it could be sent back to the House before we rose for the summer.

Why did I ask that? Because the deadline was known, and I thought it was only appropriate that we give the House of Commons the equivalent amount of time to study the bill that we chose to take to do it. We didn’t rush our study, and they, as it turns out, spent less time on the bill than we were able to devote to it.

The only point of difference, Senator Plett, that I would take with your question — because it’s a fair question — is I don’t think we’re being asked to rush this. I think that our committee did tremendous work. Earlier in the week I circulated both to leadership and to all senators a high-level summary of the amendments that were accepted, tweaked and introduced in the other place.

We’re here on a Thursday. It’s 3:30 p.m. We have plenty of time for each and every senator to take the floor and debate it. I continue to hope that we will conclude the debate, send it for Royal Assent and complete the work that we began and that we began so well.

Thank you.

Senator Arnot: I am no longer a “new” senator, having been here for two years. This timing may be explained partially as being consistent with my path — as a lawyer, judge, treaty commissioner and human rights commissioner — that I prefer to take the necessary time to have a full understanding of the facts, to weigh them carefully and to proceed with offering a judgment or decision.

Colleagues, I can say that, even with two years of tenure, I can only offer a preliminary commentary — a pre-sentence report, if you will. This commentary is shaped deeply by what I have learned from you, my colleagues, and from many other wise, articulate and passionate Canadians who have helped shape my world view. These were sometimes family, friends and parliamentarians, and sometimes teachers, educators and elders.

One specific thing I learned from elders is that, in making introductions, it is helpful to tell people about where you were born, your family, where you grew up and to give others a sense of your connections.

The biggest claim to fame I have likely comes from the fact that my grandfather played football for the Saskatchewan Roughriders for a decade, between 1919 and 1929. He played in three Grey Cup games.

In 1984, he was, at that time, the oldest living former Saskatchewan Roughrider and was interviewed by the Regina Leader-Post newspaper. He was asked what he regretted about the modern game compared to the rules he had played under. His answer was “the invention of the forward pass.” That rule allows a player to throw the ball from behind the line of scrimmage to a teammate downfield. The purpose is to accelerate the chance of a touchdown. It is, if you will, a shortcut to success.

While I have admiration for the Canadian Football League and certainly the Saskatchewan Roughriders, I sought success in the field of law. In 1972, my mother was proudly bragging to my grandmother that I had been accepted into law school. My grandmother, however, was not impressed, not at all. In fact, she was very upset. She had grave concerns — not because I might become a lawyer but because I might become a politician.

Nearly 50 years later, in July 2021, her worst fears were realized with the call from the Prime Minister when I was given the honour to join the Senate of Canada.

While I will never know for sure, I believe any worries she had about me being involved in politics would be allayed by the company I keep with you, honourable senators — people who represent regions, provinces, territories, communities, citizens and, importantly, minority groups — people entrusted with the oversight of many of the most important decisions to be made in our country — decisions to be made for Canadians by bringing our collective experience to bear and learning from one another.

Years ago, a colleague in the judiciary challenged me to better understand Indigenous peoples and communities. He asked me to attend a sweat lodge ceremony near what was then called Hobbema, Alberta. It was the first sweat lodge I ever attended. The elder looked at me and said, “I always save the hottest rocks for judges,” and I believed that.

At the end I asked the elder to help me make an outreach to the First Nations people in the Battlefords area. He wrote a name and a phone number on the back of a matchbook cover and he told me to call that person when I got home. I eventually made that telephone call about a week later, after working up the courage to pick up the phone. When a man at the other end answered, I told him, “Hi, I’m the local judge. I would like to speak to you about what’s happening in the justice system.” He said, “Oh, I know who you are. We have been waiting for your call for over 100 years.” He meant it.

That call was a catalyst for me. It changed the trajectory of my career and my life, and I felt compelled to work with Indigenous leaders, communities and people.

In doing that work, I was fortunate to learn two important things: First, there is more than one way to view the world, and Indigenous people had a world view that I needed to understand; second, I realized that my education was wholly incomplete. Education through a formal system, through oral history and through lived experience is essential.

I suspect those of you who have heard me speak about the power of education, treaty rights, Indigenous rights, human rights and citizenship wonder why this is a focus and passion for me. In part, it is a response to the intersection of two world views: politics and the life and history of my great-grandfather, J.K. McInnis. He was a politician, educator, a real estate developer and a journalist. He owned the Regina Standard daily newspaper. He was the twelfth mayor of the City of Regina and a city councillor for many years.

He ran in the 1896 federal election in Assiniboia West constituency. The result was a dead-heat tie between him and his opponent. The returning officer, as was the practice, broke the tie by casting his vote in favour of the incumbent, Nicholas Flood Davin, a lawyer from Ireland who owned a rival newspaper, the Regina Leader. Davin later became one of the key architects of the Indian residential school system, a system that prioritized assimilation over integration, the priorities of one world view over another, a disregard for the cultural mosaic that distinguishes Canada on the global stage today.

Indeed, it has been said that Canada is the most successful experiment in pluralism the world has ever seen. However, the success of Canada’s pluralistic, multi-ethnic, multitheistic and multicultural country and society is fragile. That fragility is directly related to the knowledge, understanding and commitment Canadians have for our democracy, our democratic institutions and the need for a sustained and active commitment to inherent responsibilities of citizenship.

I was and remain humbled and honoured to have been summoned to support democracy and the rights of Canadians. I am acutely aware of the tremendous responsibility and commitment to my fellow Canadian citizens and to you, my fellow senators. I embraced the challenge to be part of a new ethos in the Senate: to be non-partisan and independent, free to make decisions based on what I consider to be in the best interests of Canada, without an agenda, but rather to vote according to my experience and conscience.

As a judge, I was afforded judicial independence, a robust and essential tool defined as a core tenet of our justice system in maintaining the rule of law. I am an unwavering advocate for that independence. The 20th century was, and the 21st century is rife with examples of what happens when the rule of law and judicial independence are tampered with or even eliminated: We have social upheavals, economic chaos, wars and millions of human lives lost.

The world’s response to the Holocaust is embodied in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That was the first time in history that the rights of every individual human being were recognized. That was only 75 short years ago. That document is the foundation for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the various human rights codes in Canada and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I’m proud to say that the first human rights act in North America was the 1947 Saskatchewan Bill of Rights, created by Morris Shumiatcher and Tommy Douglas.

Human rights, treaty rights and Indigenous rights, just like the rule of law and judicial independence, are not and must never be measures of compromise. Our ability as senators to act independently from government, to be the chamber of sober second thought, is not a measure of compromise.

The rights of Canadians as citizens and as human beings remain strong because of strong institutions. Strong institutions require people of integrity who do not waver in fairness, justice and truth. Those are not measures of compromise.

Neutrality is sometimes included in that list of qualities. It is essential to the role of the judiciary and core to our work as senators when we hear from witnesses, balance their testimony and determine what to report.

However, there is a caveat. I believe that we as senators must not compromise on our responsibility to uphold the rights of minority groups. The Senate must not succumb to the tyranny of the majority. This means we have a bias in upholding the Constitution, Charter rights and human rights. It is a bias in upholding the rule of law and our commitment to truth and justice. It is in our calling to the Senate to always, without fail and with the biases required of our positions hold the government of the day accountable and improve every piece of legislation we are required to assess, and thereby make our democratic institutions stronger.

There is an old concept in common law that I believe applies to our work. We must act in accordance with the honour of the Crown. I have written and spoken about the honour of the Crown to many audiences, students, academics, lawyers, judges, chiefs, elders and policy-makers. The honour of the Crown is a principle and a convention that requires, in every action and decision, the women and men who represent the Crown in Canada to conduct themselves as if their personal honour and family name depended on it.

To be clear, I’m speaking about the people in the legislative and executive branches of government, because they are responsible for the actions of the Crown. I know that some consider the honour of the Crown to be a remnant of a time long past, an anachronism to be ignored. Colleagues, I don’t share that view. The principles of the honour of the Crown demand that senators and Canadians operating in a mature, democratic society act with principle from the highest moral standard. Perhaps most of all, it is imperative that our words and actions are honourable in the way that my grandmother would approve. While I might disagree with my grandfather about the merits of the forward pass, I know there is no quick forward pass in our work. There can be no shortcut to success that abrogates our responsibility to the next generation.

Thinking about the future, I recall the words of Chief Mistawasis during Treaty 6 negotiations at Fort Carlton in 1876, just a few kilometres north of present-day Saskatoon. He was a head chief. He really understood the power of education. He spoke about it and advocated for it. These are his words, which reflect his world view. He said:

What we speak of and do now will last as long as the sun shines and the river runs, we are looking forward to our children’s children . . . .

Colleagues, protecting our democracy requires constant vigilance. I am proud to stand with you, my Senate colleagues, as we work to strengthen the future of our country and to make Canada a better place for our children’s children. Thank you. Kinanâskomitinâwâw.

Senator Housakos: It could be both, you’re right. I think we, as a Parliament, have an obligation to thoroughly look at this very carefully.

Now, we all know why politicians flip-flop and don’t honour their commitments from Speeches from the Throne and, in this particular instance, flip-flop on their own public policy that has been the cornerstone of their government for years. I suspect they flip-flopped in this case because they realize Canadians are catching onto them, that they’re not solving any of the environmental climate change problems while driving Canadians to the poorhouse.

We will continue to be partisan on this side. We will continue to follow through on our responsibility as parliamentarians that we’ve been summoned to do here, which is to engage in the public discourse and the public-policy-making and debate Speeches from the Throne, energy policy and taxation policy and do our due diligence in a sober-second-thought manner in the interests of Canadian taxpayers.

Today, Senator Gold, it’s your day. I want to compliment your government for finally listening to some common sense, but there’s more common sense to come. Thank you, colleagues. Have a great weekend.

(On motion of Senator LaBoucane-Benson, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dalphond, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bernard, for the second reading of Bill S-264, An Act to establish International Tax Justice and Cooperation Day.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Senator Coyle: Back to Rose Paul and the success at Paqtnkek Mi’kmaw Nation.

In addition to its new state-of-the-art Bayside Travel Centre, which has a large gas station, two restaurants, a convenience store, a liquor store, a gift shop, a Nova Scotia tourism facility, gaming and a long-haul trucking facility, the site provides a base for so much more.

Paqtnkek also has Bayside Renewables, through which they are involved in solar farms and are planning the only integrated micro grid in Atlantic Canada which will combine solar panels, battery storage and EV charging — right on that site.

Like Membertou, Paqtnkek has a stake in Clearwater Seafoods. They have an equity position and are at the table with EverWind Fuels, a green hydrogen initiative. They are involved with Maritime Launch, Canada’s first commercial spaceport, in Canso, Nova Scotia, and they have plans for a new business centre and a hotel.

When I asked Rose about the impact of all this economic activity on the community, she told me that social assistance rates are down 30%. More people are employed, and it is a real paradigm shift — a real mind shift — for young people who now see themselves pursuing business opportunities or being employed right there in their own community. Rose said these successes are long overdue and so important to fulfill the promise of those who came before her — like her own grandmother — to make it right by them and honour their hard work and vision.

Honourable senators, I am so impressed with CEO Rose Paul and Chief Terry Paul and the Mi’kmaw nations of Membertou and Paqtnkek. These leaders and these communities, like their peers who we are hearing about from across Canada, are working hard and creatively every day to close that wide prosperity gap discussed earlier. They are doing this with a clear focus on fulfilling the visions of their ancestors and with a steadfast effort to create economic opportunities and a healthy, prosperous future for generations of young people to come.

Honourable senators, please join me in congratulating Chief Terry Paul and CEO Rose Paul on their leadership and many accomplishments.

Wela’lioq. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

(At 6:04 p.m., the Senate was continued until Tuesday, October 31, 2023, at 2 p.m.)