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.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division, and report adopted.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of 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.

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.

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?