Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak as the critic of Bill S-14, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Rouge National Urban Park Act and the National Parks of Canada Fishing Regulations, introduced in the Senate on October 19, 2023, by Senator Gold, the government leader in the Senate.

Colleagues, we gather here today to deliberate a bill that seeks to implement changes in the realm of conservation and preservation of our natural heritage.

Bill S-14 amends the Canada National Parks Act to establish a new park reserve in Labrador. This initiative includes specific provisions concerning its operation and administration.

It also proposes the expansion of the boundaries of no fewer than seven existing national parks and one national park reserve.

The bill aims to strengthen legislation against offences related to the discharge or deposit of harmful substances in a national park or national park reserve.

It will rename one park and modify the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act. This portion of the bill focuses on the establishment of the Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area, an initiative that underscores the importance of preserving our precious marine ecosystems.

Covering over 108,000 square kilometres, this park will account for nearly 1.9% of our protected marine areas, serving as a bastion of biodiversity in the eastern Canadian Arctic. This area is not just crucial for its unique biodiversity; it is also vital for the survival and livelihood of the Inuit of the High Arctic. Described as an ecological engine, this park is more than that. It is the heart of an entire ecosystem, a life-giving source supporting not only a wide range of marine species but also the human communities that rely on these waters.

Lastly, the bill amends the Rouge National Urban Park Act, aiming here to strengthen penalties against the discharge or deposit of substances in this urban park, thereby ensuring its protection for future generations.

The government asserts that the purpose of these amendments is to protect and enhance our natural and cultural heritage. National parks are designed to preserve Canada’s representative terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems while allowing the public to enjoy and utilize them sustainably.

As for national marine conservation areas, they protect marine ecosystems while promoting ecologically sustainable use of their resources.

Beyond these objectives, the government aims to achieve ambitious conservation targets, such as conserving 25% of our lands and waters by 2025, and 30% by 2030. Moreover, the goal is to create several new national parks, marine areas and urban parks in the coming years.

Honourable senators, allow me to focus on a critical point: the importance of a more thorough analysis of this bill. We are facing significant issues that require proper and enlightened reflection.

One is the potential impact expanding existing park boundaries might have on the people who live near the parks. Certainly, many of these expanded boundaries are in areas where relatively few people are domiciled, but many are in areas where there are primarily Indigenous people who regularly hunt and fish, and these realities must be accommodated appropriately.

But not all national parks are remote. I grew up beside a national historic park, the Fortress of Louisbourg on the western side of Louisbourg Harbour. In the late 1920s, the land where the fortress itself stood was purchased by the federal government, which designated it a national historic site.

There were only a few homes on that 60-acre site, and they were removed. Except for a nice stone museum and a caretaker’s home that the federal government built in the early 1930s, the entire site was empty. Then in 1961, the Diefenbaker government announced it would partially reconstruct about one quarter of the original fortress.

Even at a young age, I was excited about the plans for the fortress. My mother’s people were from West Louisbourg, so I was often there, and playing around the fortress site was a common pastime. The bombproofs of the original château were exposed, and we’d always climb around on them. The old roads were marked, and some foundations for significant buildings, like the hospital, had been rebuilt over the years. To think that it would be somewhat restored was exciting to the townspeople for sure. The people of Louisbourg were always proud of the town’s unique history, and to see the fortress rise again had a romantic appeal to everyone in the town.

The reconstruction from the early 1960s to the early 1980s was a significant economic generator for the town of Louisbourg and the greater community during that time. Laid-off miners from communities like Glace Bay were retrained to be stonemasons, bricklayers and metalworkers, to name a few trades. In 1966, the Louisbourg Town Council voted to restore the old French spelling to the town itself as a salute to the restoration. Many people built careers for themselves with the reconstruction of the fortress.

That reconstruction became important to me personally, as I worked in archaeology for five summers when I attended university between 1974 and 1978. Of course, I have always loved history, and my hometown has a lot of it, and being able to work there and live at home during my university years was a wonderful gift.

But there were a lot of downsides as well, both immediately and some which became much more evident with time. Ottawa had determined that West Louisbourg — an old, mostly Irish Catholic community dating back to the 1760s which lay outside the incorporated town and included the fortress site — was to be expropriated, as were the communities of Kennington Cove and Deep Cove along the Atlantic Coast west to Gabarus, a distance of about eight miles.

In all, by the time the bureaucrats were finished, over 16,000 acres to the west of the incorporated town were eventually expropriated by the federal authority. All the homes and the people were removed, and the lovely old Stella Maris church in West Louisbourg — which stood directly across from my grandfather Kehoe’s home, where generations of my mother’s family had attended and where all my siblings and I were baptized — was torn down by the government. It was a very sad day. When people ask now why they had to tear the church down, which is nowhere near the fortress site and should never have been destroyed, one can only conclude it must have blocked the view of the fortress from Ottawa.

Many people did not want to move, but Ottawa was determined to expropriate a lot more land than was necessary for the reconstruction. The locals were just a bunch of small-town and rural people who had no leverage and eventually did what they were told to do by the authorities. Some tried to fight it, but most acquiesced and tried to see the good in it.

Now, Louisbourg’s great historic strategic advantage was always as an active seaport. Most of what today is referred to as “industrial Cape Breton” is found around or near Sydney Harbour and its many communities. But they are all found on the northeast side of the island, where the Cabot Strait enters the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Louisbourg itself is located away from industrial Cape Breton, on the southeast coast of Cape Breton, on the Atlantic Ocean. It was chosen by Louis XV and his advisers to be the site for the fortress because of its ice-free harbour — something not available on the Cabot Strait side of the island. That was still important until the 1950s. Louisbourg had been the winter shipping port for all of industrial Cape Breton since the late 1890s — coal and steel going out, iron ore coming in. Only rail connected us to the rest of industrial Cape Breton. The industrial era was coming to an end, but the fortress seemed to compensate for the changes.

However, by the late 1980s, when the reconstruction phase was well over, the community was beginning to atrophy noticeably. Our population began to plummet and all kinds of services disappeared. There used to be four gas stations; now there are none. The credit union is long gone and the bank just closed. Then the high school was gone, then the junior high school was gone and now there are no schools at all. The town lost its incorporation in 1994. No more drugstore, no more doctor, no more much of anything except during tourist season.

Why did the community’s vitality begin to suffer? It is true that many small towns in Canada are in decline, and there might have been some of that at work, but the biggest problem is that the federal government’s land grab to the west of Louisbourg had cut off the town’s access along the western shore road to Gabarus. This is part of what is known locally as “the old French road,” the oldest road on Cape Breton Island. You can’t drive through the community anymore. All of the normal services that you expect in a community dried up because it couldn’t operate normally outside of the tourist season.

The old seaport had become a de facto outport — a dead end, a cul-de-sac. You can’t enter the town from the coastline to the west. All visitors to Cape Breton now have to drive through to industrial Cape Breton and then backtrack to Louisbourg.

This is a cautionary tale. I tell this story because it’s a story of expropriation with no consultation and it resulted in serious unintended consequences. I resent — and I’m not alone in my resentment — the way my hometown was changed for the worse by this massive expropriation of land. So much damage has been done, and most of it was easily avoidable. All they had to do was leave the road to Gabarus open through the park boundaries.

I bring this saga of Louisbourg to the Senate’s attention because I know the effect that massive expropriation without proper consultation can have on communities. However, that doesn’t mean I’m not relatively supportive of the goals outlined in this bill, because I am broadly supportive of the goals of this bill. But let’s make sure that consultation is not a mere formality but, rather, a genuine, respectful and constructive dialogue with any community that is being affected by these proposed changes.

There are important national interests to consider. Our national parks and nature reserves often border areas of energy activities. Decisions related to the management and extension of these protected areas can have a significant impact on access to resources and methods of energy exploitation. Thorough consultation with this sector not only allows for anticipating and managing economic impacts but also innovating towards more sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions.

Tourism, for its part, derives direct value from the beauty and integrity of our natural spaces. National parks and reserves are major attractions for both national and international tourists. It is crucial to assess how our decisions affect this sector, not only in terms of revenue but also in terms of the quality and sustainability of the tourist offering.

Both the energy and tourism sectors are important to our country and to our economy. Each change we make to the management of our parks can have repercussions on these sectors. It is imperative to ensure that all stakeholders have been consulted and that the economic impact has been rigorously assessed.

Moreover, as our country embarks on ambitious conservation goals, we must also consider the costs, both financial and human, associated with these projects. Implementing these new regulations and managing new reserves and parks — all of this requires resources. Do we have a solid plan to deal with this? We cannot afford to make hasty decisions. It is our duty to scrutinize this bill thoroughly in committee to ensure the well-being of our heritage, our citizens and our future generations.

Honourable senators, each of us can attest to the geographical magnificence of our country. We are privileged in Canada to be surrounded by national parks of breathtaking beauty. Protecting these spaces is more than a responsibility; it is a duty to our heritage and a legacy that we must pass on intact to future generations.

I urge the chamber to get this bill to committee as soon as possible so we can give this proposed legislation the due diligence it deserves as quickly as possible. Thank you, colleagues, for your time and attention.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator McCallum, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.)

[Translation]

Hon. David M. Arnot: Honourable senators, I rise today to respond to the Speech from the Throne, in the spirit of the long‑held tradition of an inaugural speech.

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. 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.

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.

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.