Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Senator MacDonald, thank you for your speech. I don’t know if you realize how closely what you have recounted mirrors what has happened to First Nations throughout Canadian history. You said that this is a cautionary tale about expropriation without consultation and about massive expropriation of land. This has happened to different people. I want senators to remember that we experienced historical colonialism and colonization. I want senators to remember that what we fight for is true and that we would like our issues to be recognized.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, first of all, I would like to congratulate Senator Arnot on his maiden speech in the chamber on the Speech from the Throne. I’m sure he will make a great contribution to this institution with all his knowledge and background.

I would like to also, though, participate in giving my thoughts on the Speech from the Throne, which is an important tool for parliamentarians. It is the Speech from the Throne that outlines the direction, the strategy and the objective of the Crown — of the government — and where they want to take government. And, of course, it’s our responsibility to review that document thoroughly, and for many of us who care about holding the government to account, to express their views.

So I think if we look at the Speech from the Throne and this particular Parliament, we have a government that has failed on all accounts. I think the reality of the matter is that, as parliamentarians, we have an obligation to highlight them and call upon them to do better. If we look at their commitment to fiscal responsibility, they’ve actually failed on a number of Speeches from the Throne, starting from the first one they delivered back in 2015, where they promised a balanced budget by the end of their first mandate. Of course, now, after three Speeches from the Throne, this current one has thrown out the door any fiscal responsibility whatsoever. I guess, in a way, they are actually consistent in that promise.

They also said in the Speech from the Throne that the world needs more Canada. Of course, colleagues, if we do a thorough review of our foreign policy standing — it doesn’t matter if it’s our operations in Afghanistan or the way we’re dealing with the IRGC — there has probably never before been less Canada on the global stage than there is currently. If we look at our peacekeeping and defence capabilities, we don’t have the capacity that this once-great country did on the world scene.

Of course, it’s compelling on our part to hold the government to account. We have committees here, we do studies and, more importantly, we vote on government legislation, which is rooted in the Speech from the Throne. When we see that the executive is not consistent with their objectives and don’t actually realize their goals, we have an obligation, I think, to call it out and even vote against it.

I want to get to a particular point. I don’t want to take up a lot of time because I realize you all know my views on this particular government and how successful they’ve become. We know the series of failures, and it’s indicated in the plummeting polls right now. We see how Canadians feel about this government. However, there are two cornerstones of the Speech from the Throne. We have now seen how this government is going forward, and one commitment they kept from the Speech from the Throne is putting in place a carbon tax, which they claim would clear up all the pollution in the environment and would actually be the catalyst to making Canada a world leader in dealing with pollution and making us the leaders when it comes to environmental climate change and challenges.

Of course, simultaneously, another achievement of this carbon tax is it has pummelled middle-class Canadians across the country, coast to coast to coast. Senator Carignan brought up some statistics of the number of Canadians lining up at food banks. We’ve never seen that before. In large part, it is due to the carbon tax.

We in the opposition, those of us who are partisan and actually disagree with this public policy and engage in debate, think it doesn’t fulfill any environmental goals whatsoever. It just makes Canadians poorer and poorer while driving up inflation.

Lo and behold, here is another Speech from the Throne promise that just went out the door a few minutes ago. Prime Minister Trudeau decided to go to Atlantic Canada and announced a few minutes ago — many of you might not know this; you might be hearing this for the first time — that he’s putting a pause on the carbon tax for home heating. Congratulations, Senator Gold. After months and months of us asking the question and giving sound advice, finally someone over at the PMO has heeded that advice. Congratulations.

I’m not too disturbed about breaking that promise in the Speech from the Throne. I think it’s a good start. I don’t think it goes anywhere near far enough because our agricultural sector is still being pummelled by a carbon tax that is being reflected every single time we walk into a grocery store and fill up a cart of food. The middle class and poor Canadians working hard trying to make it to that middle class — that is a line from your own Speech from the Throne — will never achieve that goal if we continue to pummel them in the spirit of trying to save the environment.

I will say this, colleagues: We should debate this thoroughly. I think we have an obligation to debate the carbon tax thoroughly.

My question is the following: Senator Galvez, is this decision today an admission that the government has failed on all fronts when it comes to combatting climate change and they’re taking a step back? Or is it an admission that this is a bad economic strategy and that taxing Canadians in the spirit of saving the environment will only create more poor Canadians and drive middle-class Canadians to the poorhouse? It’s either one or the other.

Senator Plett: It could be both.

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Senator Deacon’s Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting.

Colleagues may remember the reservations that Senator White, our former colleague, and I had with Bill C-218 dealing with single-event sports betting. At that time, and even now, I feel that we jumped on board too quickly because of tight timelines.

Bill C-218 could have seriously benefited from more consultation and research. In developing a proper and safe single‑event sports betting regime, it needs to come with supports to dissuade problem gamblers and those vulnerable to becoming them. One might argue that those supports are primarily a provincial responsibility, but a conversation between the federal government and the provinces and territories would have been prudent to ensure supports existed before single-event sports betting was legalized.

That brings me to Bill S-269 before us today. This is the type of sober second thought needed when discussing a bill that makes sports betting easier and more addictive. These are the type of supports needed for those most affected and most vulnerable to gambling. I commend Senator Deacon for her efforts in this regard, and Senator Cotter for his contributions as well. Senator Deacon and Senator Cotter succinctly defined for us the purpose of the bill, and what it hopes to accomplish, so I will simply paraphrase as a reminder.

Beginning with the second part of the bill is the requirement of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to review its regulations and policies to assess their effectiveness in reducing any harms due to the proliferation of advertising for sports betting. From the federal perspective, this is a good tool to apply in order to reduce the harms of this type of gambling.

The first part of the bill is the development of a national framework on advertising for sports betting. Framework and strategy bills are important, especially with multi-jurisdictional laws, because it brings the much-needed conversations together. The bill before us would bring the federal government together with the provincial and territorial governments, the Indigenous community and other relevant stakeholders, such as gaming regulators and those within sports ethics.

These conversations are crucial to develop a whole-of-Canada approach to tackling the issue of sports betting. Developing baseline regulations, with the agreement of the provinces and territories, would create a consistent, manageable and predictable regime, which would enable better tracking of information and statistics surrounding sports betting and its consequences. This is about setting national standards to help curb the addictions that gambling can cause, and avoiding a piecemeal approach wherever possible.

We have seen the Ontario government move to restrict the use of athletes and other celebrities in advertising for sports betting, which will come into effect at the end of February. Current hockey icons such as Connor McDavid and Auston Matthews — and the Great One, Wayne Gretzky — have appeared in such ads since single-event sports betting was legalized. It generally isn’t our adults whom these advertisements are appealing to, but to our vulnerable youth.

These players are seen as idols to them, and something that should be emulated. What I see is multi-millionaires promoting unhealthy, addictive habits that are primarily directed at youth. I think it’s safe to presume that these already wealthy figures are making even more money by doing these ads — I expect their price tags aren’t cheap. This is just a snapshot into the profits that can be made from single-event sports betting in Ontario — that the NHL elites can be bought to promote.

While this is a worthwhile step for the province to take — and I expect that all provinces will look to do the same — it is a very small step. Removing star appeal from sports betting advertising won’t necessarily curb the advertising itself, which is a massive part of the issue.

Some potential solutions have been raised by previous speakers to Bill S-269: no advertising before, during or after sports matches; no advertising at times when our youth would be significant parts of the audiences; and no advertising in sports arenas or on players’ uniforms.

This last point is contained within Recommendation 47 from the 2020 House of Lords report entitled Gambling Harm — Time for Action, which reads:

Gambling operators should no longer be allowed to advertise on the shirts of sports teams or any other part of their kit. There should be no gambling advertising in or near any sports grounds or sports venues, including sports programmes.

This report contains other important recommendations to consider for our purposes today. Recommendation 52 says:

Advertisements which are objectively seen as offering inducements to people to start or to continue gambling, or which create a sense of urgency about placing bets, should be banned. . . .

Recommendation 46 is more wide-reaching and explains that:

The Government should commission independent research to establish the links between gambling advertising and gambling-related harm for both adults and children.

Research should also be done here in Canada for a made-at-home approach to preventing sports betting-related harms.

If we look to other countries, we are seeing progress that Canada can emulate. Colleagues, work is already being done elsewhere, so let’s incorporate it into our thinking, as well as what fits into our own framework. For example, Spain, Italy and Belgium have already banned nearly all gambling ads, and the Netherlands effected a new ban on untargeted online gambling advertisements just this past July.

Canada and its provinces can investigate the details of these bans to see what may work here. Because there is over one suicide a day in Britain due to gambling-related harms, as of 2020, they put a stop to betting companies accepting credit cards. Access to credit was obviously putting people further into debt due to their addictions and perpetuating their problems. This is also something worth considering in a Canadian context.

None of these possible solutions can be administered in a vacuum. As with treating any addiction, a holistic approach is necessary to make headway because it is such a complex issue. Another option that could be considered in national framework discussions is a government-funded advertising campaign covering television, radio, social media and other messaging fora speaking to the harms of gambling. We currently see this type of messaging here in Ontario concerning the harms of cannabis, including cannabis-impaired driving.

Something else that could be raised with the provinces is a funding formula to support research, education — such as the public awareness campaign mentioned above — and treatment services for harmful gambling. This formula could be based around the proceeds created through government-funded sports betting ventures. As we know, the sports betting industry is one that creates billions of dollars in revenue annually, with estimates by the Canadian Gaming Association of $1.4 billion per year in Ontario alone.

In fact, according to a report from iGaming Ontario, a subsidiary of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, sports betting netted over $35 billion in total wagers during the market’s first year from more than 1.6 million active player accounts.

As we passed a law to allow for single-event sports betting before the provinces were ready for it, in my assertion, we’re now playing a game of catch-up. The proliferation of advertising for sports betting was not far-fetched since there wasn’t any regulation around it. The floodgates were opened, allowing for the situation we find ourselves in today.

It is incumbent upon the provinces, with perhaps some support from the federal government, to provide funding to ensure that Bill C-218 doesn’t create a generation of problem gamblers and a system without supports for those who are addicted. Bill S-269 is a critical piece of legislation to ensure these conversations happen and holistic solutions are found.

Senators, when I spoke to Bill C-218, I said that if we’re going to bring single-event sports betting into the light, we should do so with our eyes open. Well, now we have the opportunity to open our eyes. I thank Senator Deacon for her leadership on this file. I unreservedly and enthusiastically support the purpose of Bill S-269 and its study at committee. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, for the second reading of Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu moved second reading of Bill S-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.

He said: Honourable senators, I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading as a critic of Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

Please allow me, colleagues, to offer a quick summary of Bill C-226. I will not be long.

This bill requires the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to develop a national strategy to promote efforts across Canada to prevent environmental racism and advance environmental justice.

Following consultations or cooperation with anyone interested, the national strategy must include measures such as possible amendments to federal laws, policies and programs, and compensation to families and communities. Within two years of the day the act comes into force, it calls upon the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to prepare a report setting out the national strategy to be tabled in both houses.

Let me be clear, colleagues — I firmly believe that all Canadians should live in a healthy environment and we should work to combat racism in all its forms. However, I disagree with the approach proposed by Bill C-226 of using a national strategy to attain such goals.

From the very beginning, Bill C-226 fails to establish a reasonable scope for the consultation process. The legislation calls on the minister to consult or cooperate with “any interested persons, bodies, organizations or communities,” which includes other ministers and representatives of government in Canada and Indigenous communities — but provides no definition of what constitutes an “interested” person, body, organization or community, leaving the scope of consultation wide open.

This is unwieldy and unworkable. Without a precise scope, you cannot have an effective consultation process. Regardless of the goal of any national strategy being developed, the scope of consultations must have clear parameters in order to give concise direction to the strategy or framework.

For example, in the Forty-second Parliament, Conservative MP Todd Doherty presented Bill C-211, An Act respecting a federal framework on post-traumatic stress disorder, which received Royal Assent on June 21, 2018. That bill specifically identified the various ministers, representatives and stakeholders who needed to be consulted in order to build a framework on post‑traumatic stress disorder. Federal ministers were named right in the bill, along with provincial and territorial representatives, representatives from the medical community and patients’ groups. This approach ensured that the bill was set up for the best possible chance of success.

When you compare the consultation clause from Bill C-211 with the one in the bill before us today, there is a stark, striking difference.

With Bill C-226, you are left to wonder where the consultation will begin and end — and whom it will involve. It is extremely broad and ambiguous. It is left wide open, allowing the minister to pick and choose who they consult with. They can tailor the consultations to fit what they want to hear and see in the national strategy while ignoring other important voices.

Considering this government’s terrible track record regarding consulting, this is a very real concern. Will they prioritize consulting close friends of the government instead of listening to people on the ground? The parameters are unclear, which leaves the consultation process open to manipulation.

Bill C-226 goes on to propose a series of possible measures which could be taken as part of the national strategy. The first of these is suggesting possible amendments to federal laws, policies and programs.

Again, like the consultation clause in the bill, this is very broad and open to interpretation. I am concerned that this national strategy could end up being ineffective in combating environmental racism and instead just add more layers of red tape to an already complicated regulatory process in this country. During these difficult economic times, we need more stability, not more bureaucracy.

Another optional measure proposed in the bill is providing compensation for individuals or communities in order to advance environmental justice and address environmental racism. But do we have any parameters around the compensation? No. Do we have any indication on how it will be developed? No. Do we even have conditions of admissibility of whom would qualify? Again, no. It seems to give a blank cheque to the minister to decide how they want to compensate individuals and communities.

I have never been in favour of giving a blank cheque to a government — any government, quite frankly — and even less so the current government. But Bill C-226 certainly leans in that direction and leaves the door wide open. It is, yet again, a case of having a very broad and general piece of legislation.

Finally, honourable senators, I must voice my concern about this government’s inability to achieve little, if anything, from national strategies. Indeed, I remind you that in 2017, the federal government launched the National Housing Strategy, a 10-year, $72 billion plan to address key issues in the Canadian housing landscape. One only needs to look at the current housing market to see the failure of the Trudeau government on this front. We now have a housing market that is much less affordable and much less accessible for first-time buyers. The National Housing Strategy has cost Canadians billions of dollars to date, and the results are simply not there.

How can we trust this government to come up with a reasonable and effective national strategy? I am concerned that the only result will be spending more money with nothing to show for it. That is why I highly doubt the Trudeau government’s ability to deliver on a national strategy respecting environmental racism and environmental justice. As Bill C-226 states, the minister will have two years to prepare a report setting out the strategy. Knowing how this government operates, the two years of consultation will not be done with the best interest of taxpayers’ money in mind.

Furthermore, honourable senators, it will take five years after the strategy is tabled in Parliament to measure its effectiveness. During that time, the government might think it is working towards the goal of ensuring all Canadians live in a healthy environment and combating systemic racism, when they are doing little more than pouring money into an ineffective strategy that yields few results. In my opinion, Bill C-226 raises too many questions and uncertainties for Canadians.

I am not the only one, honourable senators. During a study on Bill C-226 in the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee in the other place, Ellis Ross, who is currently a member of the legislative assembly representing the riding of Skeena in British Columbia and who was previously the chief councillor for the Haisla Nation, agreed that the bill is much too broad and could be interpreted in many ways. Furthermore, he also said:

. . . Where does this end in terms of financial costs? Everything I’ve seen in terms of government policy always ends up on the ratepayer, the taxpayer, or it actually chases investment out of provinces. . . .

Honourable senators, Mr. Ross is right. At the end of the day, it is the taxpayers who will foot the bill. Canada cannot afford costlier initiatives that have the potential to scare away future investments in our country. I wish the committee in the other place had taken more time to study the bill and listen to various points of view from coast to coast to coast so that we would have a better understanding of what we have in front of us today because at the end of the day we need to make sure that national strategies do not ignore provincial and local issues while also not overstepping its federal jurisdiction.

Colleagues, I cannot support a bill where there are so many open-ended questions. As Conservatives, we sincerely believe all Canadians should live in a healthy environment and that racism needs to be combated in all its forms. I do not believe this bill will have the expected outcome and could instead be costly, while not serving Canadians’ best interests. This bill is too broad, lacks definitions and could bring even more uncertainties to too many industries that are looking for stability. Furthermore, I don’t believe the current government has demonstrated the ability to lead such an initiative to consult with the people it needs to consult with.

Honourable senators, even though I oppose this bill the way it is right now, I have always maintained that bills should get a thorough vetting at committees. And so I do oppose the bill, but I support it going to the committee for a thorough examination — and I’m looking at the chair — and would support that it proceeds. I will support this on division. Thank you, colleagues.

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that the following communication had been received:

RIDEAU HALL

October 26, 2023

Madam Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 26^th day of October, 2023, at 5:18 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Christine MacIntyre

Deputy Secretary to the Governor General

The Honourable

The Speaker of the Senate

Ottawa

Bills Assented to Thursday, October 26, 2023:

An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood) (Bill S-222, Chapter 27, 2023)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act (Bill S-12, Chapter 28, 2023)

[English]

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(g), I move:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, October 31, 2023, at 2 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Klyne, calling the attention of the Senate to the ongoing business and economic contributions made by Indigenous businesses to Canada’s economy.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm moved:

That the twenty-sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled Cultural Diplomacy at the Front Stage of Canada’s Foreign Policy, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 11, 2019, during the First Session of the Forty-second Parliament be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-23(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Canadian Heritage being identified as the minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, I rise today, on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation to speak to Senator Klyne’s Inquiry No. 13, highlighting the business and economic contributions of Indigenous businesses to Canada’s economy.

As Senator Klyne has said:

There are many valuable lessons to be learned and built upon for continued success towards accelerating the participation of Indigenous people in Canada’s economy.

Colleagues, at our Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, we have been completing our study on Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We know, colleagues, that before contact with colonizers, Indigenous peoples had thriving economies, communities and governance structures and that colonization and assimilation, in all their forms, suppressed that prosperity and that strength.

Supporting Indigenous prosperity by advancing economic reconciliation is key to meeting several of the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Equitable access to education, employment and economic opportunities for Indigenous people is essential, and of course, those efforts must be led by Indigenous people themselves.

The new national council for reconciliation will, among other responsibilities, monitor progress on reconciliation across Canada in all sectors, including economic reconciliation.

However, this monitoring responsibility may not be so easy to accomplish.

In its paper released earlier this month entitled An Overview of the Indigenous Economy in Canada, the Bank of Canada pointed out that there are about 1.8 million people self-identified as Indigenous, representing 5% of the Canadian population. Of this total, there are 1.05 million from more than 630 First Nations, with approximately 30% of First Nations people living on‑reserve and 70% living off-reserve. There are 624,000 Métis people and 70,500 Inuit people with close to 70% of the Inuit people living in Inuit Nunangat, where they are the majority population.

Almost 60% of the Indigenous population in Canada lives in rural areas compared to one third of the non-Indigenous population, and one quarter of the Indigenous people live in Canada’s 12 largest cities.

The Bank of Canada paper says that:

Attempts to measure the size or contributions of the Indigenous economy in Canada are limited by data availability and quality.

Despite these gaps in data, some studies have attempted to quantify the size or contributions of the Indigenous economy . . . . While the estimates vary considerably, they suggest that the share of gross domestic product (GDP) of Indigenous people is well short of half of their population share, which speaks to the . . . economic disparity that exists between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations of Canada.

Colleagues, half — 50% — is quite a significant gap.

Is this discouraging? Yes. Is this unacceptable? Yes, definitely. Now, colleagues, let me turn to some examples of efforts being made to close that prosperity gap.

Today, as we come closer to the end of Mi’kmaw History Month, I would like to highlight two incredible stories of economic leadership from Mi’kmaqi, the place I have the good fortune to inhabit. One is a story about Membertou and the other is about Paqtnkek.

Let me start with the success story of Membertou First Nation, a well-known economic powerhouse on Cape Breton Island. You heard me mention it last week in my statement honouring Sister Dorothy Moore, and as many of you likely know, our former colleague the Honourable Dan Christmas has played a central role in that success of his nation.

I would first like to share the most recent chapter in that story by reading the words of Chief Terry Paul, and I will mention, a recipient of a 1977 diploma in leadership graduate of the Coady Institute, where I used to work. In a letter written in November 2020 to his community, he wrote:

Dear Membertou, I am incredibly proud to announce that Membertou has led a major commercial acquisition that will have lasting positive impacts on our community for seven generations to come.

As of today, Clearwater Seafoods has been acquired by a Mi’kmaq Coalition, which includes Membertou, and our new business partner, Premium Brands. Clearwater is one of the largest fully-integrated seafood companies in North America, and is now owned by the Mi’kmaq. A truly monumental day for our people.

He went on to say:

The details of this commercial acquisition include Membertou and a coalition of participating Mi’kmaq communities from across Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, owning 50% of Clearwater Seafoods and 100% of . . . Clearwater licences.

For 13,000 years, the Mi’kmaq have sustainably fished the waters of Atlantic Canada, and today, on this truly transformational day, we are owners of a global leader in the fishery.

For so many years, our communities were not welcome to participate in big industry. Today, on our own terms, we are 50% commercial owners. All . . . benefits of ownership will flow back to our community, and with a seat at the table comes the ability to influence the role of our people in the commercial fishery.

Please understand that this commercial acquisition is separate from both our moderate livelihood (rights-based) fishery, and our commercial in-shore fishery operations. With today’s news, we are . . . participants in all sectors of the fishery.

Chief Terry goes on to say:

Through working with our partners at First Nations Finance Authority . . . the collective of communities has financed $250 million over 30 years. This investment is unique and separate from our current commercial operations, and does not financially impact Membertou’s ability to continue providing all the services necessary for our growing community in any way. In fact, it creates a brand-new revenue stream for us; diversifying our financial portfolio and creating wealth for Membertou for many years to come.

He concludes:

Today, we are keeping our hero, Donald Marshall Junior, in our hearts. It’s a moment we know he would look on with great pride.

Wela’lioq, Chief Terry Paul.

And proud is what all members of Membertou First Nation should be. This is huge. It builds on decades of forward-thinking, painstaking and smart economic development efforts by Chief Terry, Dan Christmas and other Membertou First Nation leaders. From establishing the Membertou Development Corporation in 1989, to becoming the first ISO 9001-certified Indigenous community in the world, to being voted the best managed company in Canada, as Chief Terry says, “We used to be the backwoods, now we’re uptown.”

In addition to Clearwater Seafoods and their other fisheries, Membertou has a trade and convention centre, a data centre, a geomatics company and a boat-building company. It is involved in gaming and entertainment, a sports and wellness centre and commercial real estate. They have a stake in a planned wind‑powered green hydrogen initiative and big plans for much more. Colleagues, Membertou is often cited as a success story for other communities to emulate.

Now, colleagues, the second Mi’kmaw community economic development success story comes from the First Nation just down the road from where I live, Paqtnkek First Nation, where our new colleague Senator Prosper was chief for seven years before he became regional chief for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Colleagues, last Wednesday evening, on opposite coasts of our country, economic development in Paqtnkek was being celebrated. On the East Coast, in Antigonish, for the first time ever, a Mi’kmaw business, Paqtnkek’s Bayside Travel Centre, won the Antigonish Chamber of Commerce Emerging Business Award. On the West Coast, at the Westin Bayshore Hotel in Vancouver, Rose Paul, CEO of Paqtnkek’s Bayside Development Corporation, was being presented with the National Indigenous Women in Leadership Award by the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business.

The citation for her award said:

. . . Rose has been the trailblazer for business development, negotiations, and partnerships the business arm of Paqtnkek Mi’kmaw Nation, that commitment has fueled a vision to maximize future employment and business development for Paqtnkek community members.

Rose and her leadership team worked to develop the first ever tripartite agreement with Provincial and Federal governments and was awarded the multi-million-dollar highway interchange site on Exit 38B and with land that the community was separated from a 1960 breach of agreement. . . .

Rose has built a strategy for economic strides and developing Strategic Partnerships, reclaiming spaces at decision and planning tables, and creating partnerships Corporately through Economic Reconciliation. An essential element of the community’s long-term economic vision are strategic partnerships with corporate stakeholders, such as industry leader, first of its kind in North American Everwind Fuels. It is an alliance that Paul says will drive them towards ‘energy sovereignty’ and becoming a net zero contributor in the fight against global warning. . . .

Rose Paul credits Senator Prosper as a great leader who rolled up his sleeves with her on economic prosperity efforts in Paqtnkek.

I first met Rose Paul when she participated in the Coady Institute’s Indigenous Women in Community Leadership program. She has gone on to complete an MBA at Cape Breton University and recently completed an executive leadership program at Harvard.

When I sat down with Rose Paul at Bayside a few weeks ago, she told me the story of how, since she took up her economic development leadership role in 2006, reclaiming that land on the other side of the highway had become a community priority and key to its future prosperity.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Your Honour, given this item is on its fifteenth day, I would like to take the adjournment, with leave, in my name for the balance of my time.

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15, and Senator Busson would like to participate in the debate. Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate in the name of Senator Busson.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, it is now 6 p.m., and pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until 8 p.m. when we will resume, unless it is your wish, honourable senators, to not see the clock.

Is it agreed to not see the clock?