The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill with the following amendments, to which they desire the concurrence of the Senate:

1.Clause 2, pages 2 and 3:

(a)on page 2, replace lines 26 to 30 with the following:

(b)on page 3, replace line 2 with the following:

“who is the subject of the order and is about that person”;

(c)on page 3, replace line 7 with the following:

“an order prohibiting the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify that other person.”;

(d)on page 3, replace line 13 with the following:

“make the information known to the public, including when the disclosure is made to a legal professional, a health care professional or a person in a relationship of trust with the victim or witness.”.

2.Clause 3, pages 3 and 4:

(a)on page 3, replace line 23, in the English version, with the following:

“who is the subject of the order and is about that person”;

(b)on page 3, replace line 28 with the following:

“an order prohibiting the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify that other person.”;

(c)on page 3, replace line 33 with the following:

“to the public, including when the disclosure is made to a legal professional, a health care professional or a person in a relationship of trust with the victim, or witness or justice system participant.”;

(d)on page 4, replace lines 25 to 27 with the following:

“istence;”.

3.Clause 4, page 5:

(a)replace lines 14 and 15 with the following:

“do so may affect the privacy interests of any person who is the subject of any order prohibit-”;

(b)replace line 22 with the following:

“person who is the subject of any”.

4.Clause 32.1, pages 32 and 33: delete clause 32.1.

5.New clause 48.1, page 49: add the following after line 2:

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this message be taken into consideration?

(On motion of Senator Gold, message placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration later this day.)

[English]

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the message from the House of Commons concerning Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act

1.Clause 2, pages 2 and 3:

(a)on page 2, replace lines 26 to 30 with the following:

(b)on page 3, replace line 2 with the following:

“who is the subject of the order and is about that person”;

(c)on page 3, replace line 7 with the following:

“an order prohibiting the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify that other person.”;

(d)on page 3, replace line 13 with the following:

“make the information known to the public, including when the disclosure is made to a legal professional, a health care professional or a person in a relationship of trust with the victim or witness.”.

2.Clause 3, pages 3 and 4:

(a)on page 3, replace line 23, in the English version, with the following:

“who is the subject of the order and is about that person”;

(b)on page 3, replace line 28 with the following:

“an order prohibiting the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify that other person.”;

(c)on page 3, replace line 33 with the following:

“to the public, including when the disclosure is made to a legal professional, a health care professional or a person in a relationship of trust with the victim, or witness or justice system participant.”;

(d)on page 4, replace lines 25 to 27 with the following:

“istence;”.

3.Clause 4, page 5:

(a)replace lines 14 and 15 with the following:

“do so may affect the privacy interests of any person who is the subject of any order prohibit-”;

(b)replace line 22 with the following:

“person who is the subject of any”.

4.Clause 32.1, pages 32 and 33: delete clause 32.1.

5.New clause 48.1, page 49: add the following after line 2:

Hon. Kim Pate: Would you take another question, Senator Gold?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, would you take a question?

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, I rise today as the critic of Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, which was introduced by the Honourable Marc Gold, the Liberal government’s representative in the Senate.

Honourable colleagues, I would like to begin my speech by talking about the measures in Bill S-12 that deal with publication bans. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs made a series of amendments to the bill that sought to reflect the requests of My Voice, My Choice, an initiative created by victims of crime who want section 486.4 of the Criminal Code to be amended so that no one is ever forced to be silent because of an unwanted publication ban.

Colleagues, I would like to remind you of some of the stories shared by this victims’ group.

In 2021, a victim from Victoria, Kelly Favreau, appeared in person before the Supreme Court of British Columbia to ask for her publication ban to be lifted. She discovered the existence of this ban four years after the end of the legal proceedings. She stated that this process again infringed on her freedom and that she felt revictimized by the justice system. The alleged perpetrator in her case was authorized to present arguments explaining why the ban should not be lifted. The victim had never consented to a publication ban.

In May 2021, a victim from Ottawa, Morrell Andrews, asked the Crown prosecutor associated with her case for a hearing to lift the publication ban, but the prosecutor said that she was not sure about the procedure or policy in effect or whether the Crown would consent to lifting the ban.

After making the same request directly to the judge at the sentencing hearing, Ms. Andrews was told that the judge was no longer in a position to do so.

When a third Crown prosecutor finally asked the court to lift the publication ban, the alleged criminal’s defence lawyer opposed the request and was allowed to present arguments as to why the ban should not be lifted. The victim never gave her consent for a publication ban.

Is it normal for the abuser to control the victim’s decision? These publication bans are supposed to be a tool to protect victims and they should never be used against them. When a victim requests the lifting of a publication ban, a process should automatically be put in place by the justice system to study the request and discharge the victim of all responsibility.

In my speech at second reading, I stated that it is essential that the victim’s consent be sought before a publication ban is issued on their behalf. Crown prosecutors tend to apply publication bans in the early stages of a trial, particularly at the accused’s initial appearance. Typically, the victim is not present at that time. In such cases, victims are neither notified nor consulted, which contravenes their right to information and right to participation, rights guaranteed by the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. The result is that victims are excluded from judicial decisions and silenced, even though they are the ones most affected and should, logically, be the first to know.

Bill S‑12, in its current form, simply suggests informing the victims. However, it is important to obtain their explicit consent. Victims have to be able to decide whether they want to publicly talk about their experience, where they feel that would serve their interests. It is unacceptable that anyone can deny them this right or limit their freedom of speech under the guise of protection.

As part of the study of Bill S‑12 by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Liberals and the New Democrats rejected amendment PV-2, proposed by the Green Party. This amendment had a clear and essential intention, namely, to ensure that every victim was informed and had the opportunity to decide whether a publication ban was appropriate, in their situation, before such a measure was unilaterally imposed by the court.

Allow me to explain why this decision is so problematic.

Under the current framework, when a court case is opened, specifically upon the first appearance of the accused in court, judges frequently issue publication bans. However, these decisions are made without victims being informed, let alone consulted. Accordingly, if we do in fact reject amendment PV-2, we are perpetuating a status quo that is unacceptable.

As a result, victims are deprived of their right to choose. Not only is this contrary to the spirit of our justice system, which is intended to be fair and transparent, it also neglects the fundamental rights of victims, leaving them in a position of weakness, often at a time when they are particularly vulnerable. This perpetuates the legal tradition of making victims incidental to our justice system.

Victims deserve to be heard, informed and involved in the process that directly concerns them. It is imperative that our justice system recognize and respect this fundamental right.

I would now like to address another aspect of the changes made by the House of Commons.

First, I would like to remind senators that, originally, the bill allowed the victim or witness to request that the publication ban be modified or lifted, which required a court hearing. However, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs amended this provision to simplify the procedure for victims or witnesses who wish to modify or lift a publication ban. The revised statute now requires the prosecutor to file an application on their behalf to modify or lift the ban as quickly as possible, although victims or witnesses may still do so themselves, if they wish.

The court is required to modify or lift the publication ban, in accordance with the wishes of the victims or witnesses, unless doing so would compromise the privacy of another person also covered by the ban. In that case, a hearing must be scheduled to determine whether the ban should be modified or lifted.

It is critical to note that an amendment by Senator Simons prevented the privacy of the accused from being included in the protection afforded by publication bans. The goal of publication bans is first and foremost to protect the privacy of victims and witnesses, not the accused. The accused has to be informed if the ban is lifted, quashed or varied. However, at the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Liberals moved an amendment to delete Senator Simons’ amendment, thereby allowing for criminals to be protected by publication bans.

It is ironic, and quite frankly worrisome, to see that, under the guise of providing protection, these amendments help to maintain the power of accused persons in the judicial process. Under these changes, if a victim wants to challenge a publication ban or have it lifted, the accused can still benefit from protection.

The accused, who is often central to the case, can end up in a position where they are able to use their influence to keep a publication ban in place, even if the ban goes against the victim’s wishes. That creates a clear imbalance. We have here a situation where the rights of the accused seem to take precedence over those of the victim, particularly in terms of freedom of expression and the victim’s ability to share their own story. How is it fair for a victim who is trying to find their voice again and share their story to be prevented from doing so by the accused, the very person who caused their suffering in the first place?

This measure, as adopted, opens the door to a form of injustice where the accused, who already enjoys numerous protections under our judicial system, can be granted additional powers, specifically to indirectly muzzle the victim. It is critically important to question the logic of a law that, instead of striking a balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim, leans more in favour of the person who is in a position of strength relative to the victim. Should we allow our justice system to be used not only to defend the accused, which is fair and necessary, but to potentially suppress victims’ voices?

Justice, in its purest form, must seek a balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim. However, recent changes seem to have upset this delicate balance.

Honourable senators, there is much more to be said about the changes made to this bill, which have considerably reduced the scope of the amendments made by the Senate. An examination of the recent changes to Bill S-12 reveals a disturbing trend on the part of this government, which seems to be ignoring not only the valuable contributions of the Senate, but also, and far more troubling, the voices of victims themselves. By severely limiting the scope of the amendments proposed by the Senate, the government is showing an unwillingness to accept external, expert perspectives. This one-sided approach raises serious concerns about the government’s willingness to listen to and integrate diverse perspectives that are essential to drafting fair and balanced legislation.

The Senate, in playing its role as a chamber of sober second thought, made thoughtful changes to the bill to strengthen the rights and protection of victims. However, by rejecting these amendments, the government is sending a very clear message: Its actions do not match its words. Although the government claims to stand up for and listen to victims, its actions show a lack of consideration for and sensitivity to the real needs of victims and the recommendations that seek to improve how they fare in a complex and callous judicial process.

Honourable senators, I would now like to remind you of my views on the other part of the bill, which has to do with the National Sex Offender Registry. I already shared them in this chamber a few months ago, so I will keep my comments brief.

As we all know, Bill S-12 was introduced to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Ndhlovu, which involved a 19-year-old man who sexually assaulted two women at a party, where he touched both women’s private parts.

Despite these acts, which I would describe as serious and troubling, there is a sense, from reading the Supreme Court ruling, that including this offender in the registry is unjustified, considering the consequences that could have on his life. Similarly, the ruling seems to justify striking down the provisions that would require the automatic registration of any person found guilty of or not criminally responsible for a sexual offence as well as the provisions requiring that certain particularly violent offenders who commit more serious crimes be included, in perpetuity, in the National Sex Offender Registry.

Personally, I wonder whether the victims’ point of view was taken into account in this ruling, whether they were asked if they had suffered any trauma and whether they have suffered lasting harm as a result of the assaults. Why weren’t victims asked whether they thought the offender should be added to the registry?

This kind of ruling trivializes sexual violence against women in Canada and sends a negative message to women who are victims of sexual assault and who are reluctant to report their attackers. This offender should be registered in the National Sex Offender Registry, because he is a sex offender. The acts he committed are unacceptable in a law-abiding society like ours. The goal is to protect women against future attackers.

Take, for example, the recent case of a sex offender who was sentenced to three years and nine months in prison on April 11, 2023. From January 7 to June 5, 2022, this man assaulted six women between the ages of 30 and 65.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Downe, I’m being told that, yes, it was signed by the Acting Clerk of the other place, and proper notice has been given. The process is in order.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, I want to ask you a question about the coordinating amendment which coordinates with Bill C-291 — it’s a bill that I’m honoured to sponsor in the Senate, and a bill that was initiated by my MP colleagues Mel Arnold and Frank Caputo in the House of Commons, and passed unanimously. Now we’re waiting for the Legal Committee to study it. I think it’s very forward-looking on the part of those who added this language in order to change the language from “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material.” I just want to thank those who had done that for this particular bill, and also thank the government for accepting that amendment. I’m wondering if there is any further comment that you could provide to us regarding more explanation about that. Thank you.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(On motion of Senator Boisvenu, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Deacon (Ontario), seconded by the Honourable Senator Busson, for the second reading of Bill S-269, An Act respecting a national framework on advertising for sports betting.

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

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I will begin by reading the rule, and then I will ask if leave is granted. The rule reads as follows:

 . . . the critic of a bill, if not the Leader of the Government or the Leader of the Opposition, shall be allowed up to 45 minutes for debate at second and third reading;

Therefore, the duration is 15 minutes in any other context.

[English]

Is leave granted, honourable senators, for five more minutes?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Boisvenu, I’m sorry to interrupt, but I must remind you that, as critic of the bill, when replying to a message, you have 15 minutes to speak. You may conclude your speech in debate.

I’ll read the relevant rule.

Hon. Senators: Question.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., calling the attention of the Senate to the role and mandate of the RCMP, the skills and capabilities required for it to fulfill its role and mandate, and how it should be organized and resourced in the 21st century.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Hon. Brent Cotter moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Thank you, Your Honour.

I rise to speak to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs’s seventeenth report on its study of Bill C-48.

To assist in your recollection of this bill, it is referred to as An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform).

I’ll say more about the bill in a few moments. To give you a sense of the central thrust of the bill, it is to increase the number of offences in the Criminal Code for which, when a person is charged, he or she faces a so-called reverse onus, such that it rests with the accused person to persuade the judge or justice of the peace on a balance of probabilities that they should be released on bail. For these offences, it transfers the “burden of proof,” in legal language, onto the accused in order to get released pending trial.

First, I’ll provide a bit of context. As a general rule, people who are accused of crimes are let out on bail. The presumption is for release, but the Criminal Code provides three situations where a person can be detained: to ensure attendance in court, for the protection of the public and any victim and, third, to maintain confidence in the administration of justice. Usually, it is for the prosecution to establish that one of these situations or conditions for denial of bail exists or is met.

However, for some offences, the Criminal Code has established what is referred to as a reverse onus; that is, it is for the accused person to make the case that he or she should be released. The legal language is that the onus, or burden of justifying release, rests not with the prosecution but the person accused of the crime. This reverse-onus approach for offences, where it has been applied, has been held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

As I say, Bill C-48 will add a series of offences to this category of reverse-onus situations for bail. The categories are generally in the following range: a range of offences associated with the use of a firearm. This is the thrust of clause 1(2), 1(3) and part of what’s referred to as 1(4) of the bill, as well as offences associated with intimate partner violence where the accused person had been previously granted a discharge for a similar offence.

To assist in your understanding of this dimension of the bill — and it’s important, and also the subject of an amendment — a discharge is an outcome in a court where a person has admitted guilt or been convicted of guilt, but the sanction imposed by the judge is to discharge the person of the offence, either absolutely or on conditions. Once the conditions are met, while the record is maintained, the conviction is essentially not recorded against them — generally thought to be at the low end of sanctions for criminal offences.

Now, Bill C-48 came to us in a slightly unusual way. It was introduced in the other place on May 16, 2023. It had been the subject of periodic debate in late spring of 2023. The subject matter of Bill C-48 had been discussed among federal, provincial and territorial justice and public safety ministers prior to its introduction. The bill was supported by the provinces and territories, as well as police leadership in the country.

As many of you will have observed, over the past number of months there has been a good deal of attention paid to occasional events where a person out on bail, or out from custody on an analogous basis, is alleged to have committed a very serious crime, often a crime of violence, with tragic consequences for the victims. The sentiment around these events motivated expeditious action respecting Bill C-48.

On September 18 of this year — that is, approximately a month ago — the bill received second reading, Committee of the Whole consideration and third reading in the other place all in one day, and was adopted unanimously — and I emphasize this — without reference to the Justice Committee there. Unlike nearly all bills of this type, it received no committee study prior to its adoption in the House.

This conveyed two messages to our chamber: first, obviously one of urgency with respect to the consideration of this bill in the Senate; second, given the absence of the study in the other chamber, there was a compelling argument that the bill received meaningful, timely consideration when it was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Thursday, September 21 of this year.

In this case, the bill required sober first thought, if I may say so, and that is what it received in our committee.

Your committee held four meetings and heard from 26 witnesses, including the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada, officials from the Department of Justice, the Attorney General of British Columbia, police and legal associations, advocacy groups, academics and experts, Indigenous representatives and other stakeholders.

The committee also received nine written submissions.

I would like to briefly highlight aspects of what we heard at the committee and indicate the three places where the committee adopted amendments to the bill.

I anticipate colleagues will expand on these comments and provide perspective. I will also briefly say a bit about observations adopted by the committee.

Comments here then fall into four general categories aligned with your committee’s report.

First, many witnesses underlined the importance of collecting comprehensive and accurate data on bail in Canada to better understand and address the problems plaguing the bail system, a point we heard from nearly every witness, and to analyze the impact of legislation like Bill C-48, particularly on groups already overrepresented in the justice system.

The fact of the matter is that data collection regarding bail is the responsibility of the provinces and territories and not prioritized in the gathering of justice statistics and information. Many witnesses, however, underscored that federal legislation like this bill must be evidence-based and grounded in comprehensive, empirical data. I think it’s fair to say that the empirical basis for the adoption of this bill is weak.

As one of the observations notes, it’s critical that we know more about the bail system generally and exactly what effects, positive and negative, amendments like this to the bail system ultimately produce.

The second point concerns public safety. Witnesses expressed divergent views on the necessity, usefulness and impacts of the measures produced and proposed by this bill with regard to public safety.

In the wake of recent tragic incidents of violence involving individuals on pretrial release, several witnesses noted the importance of preserving public safety and confidence in the Canadian criminal justice system by ensuring that accused individuals are detained when that detention is justified to ensure public safety.

The committee heard testimony explaining that the bill includes targeted measures intended to respond to concerns raised by law enforcement across the country, and specific requests to expand reverse onus provisions to include select offences were received from 13 provincial and territorial premiers, including a co-signed letter in January of this year.

In contrast, some witnesses questioned the potential effectiveness of the proposed amendments, arguing that prosecutors could already argue for the detention of an accused when it is justified, including for reasons of public safety.

Some witnesses stated that the bill would not lead to a reduction of violent crime — as it does not address the root causes of violent crime — and investments in so many areas that could assist were critical.

This brings us to the first amendment to the bill adopted by the committee. Some witnesses recommended the removal of one of the provisions in the bill that would expand the reverse onus provision to apply to an accused who has received an absolute or conditional discharge for a previous conviction involving intimate partner violence. That is one of the provisions that would be a reverse onus provision in the initial bill. The witnesses argued that it would inappropriately target and criminalize survivors of intimate partner violence, as there is often a significant overlap between perpetrators and survivors of intimate partner violence. In some respects, this tends to scoop up relatively vulnerable people in this net, who are captured by the reverse onus clause. Others, including provincial and territorial governments, supported the bill in its existing form as a means to protect survivors of intimate partner violence.

The committee considered and adopted an amendment on this point to remove the reverse onus clause in these discharge and intimate partner violence cases. This was done on division, although I think that’s only technically the correct way of saying it. Senator Batters pointed out to me that, in fact, there was a roll call vote on this, and the vote was 8 to 5.

Third, the report summarizes what the committee heard in relation to the impact of Bill C-48 on Indigenous, racialized and marginalized communities. Some witnesses were concerned that the adoption of the bill would lead to prolonged litigation in bail court, increased demands on the legal aid system, longer bail delays and increased times in detention, exacerbating existing delays in the bail system. Several witnesses warned that these adverse effects would be visited disproportionately upon Indigenous, racialized and marginalized groups who are already overrepresented in the justice system, and already disadvantaged in obtaining release on bail.

All of this led the committee to consider and adopt an amendment proposed, in this case, by Senator Clement. This amendment requires additional consideration of the circumstances of vulnerable persons in judges’ and justices’ decisions respecting bail. The committee amended clause 1 of Bill C-48 to require that a justice presiding over a bail hearing state in the record of proceedings how they went about considering whether a person fell into one of the categories of people in section 493.2 that deserved special consideration — Indigenous or otherwise vulnerable people — and, if such a person is identified, how the justice applied his or her mind to that question of pretrial release.

My fourth and nearly last comment relates to the contemplated five-year review of the impact of Bill C-48. Strangely, as was noted here and at committee, clause 2 of this bill contemplates a five-year review by the Justice and Human Rights Committee of the House of Commons — period; full stop. Perhaps this was an oversight. It’s not the most critical point to be decided because the Senate would have the authority to initiate a study without any legislative blessing from the other place. Nevertheless, the committee expressed its view, noting the oversight, and introduced and adopted an amendment unanimously, as I recall, to Bill C-48 that a directive for a Senate committee — most likely the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee — be included in the clause 2 provision, which is the five-year review provision.

Finally, I will highlight four themes in the committee’s observations.

The first point is one that I’ve made already about the need for a comprehensive database reform of Canada’s bail system. It’s frustratingly fragmented and not a priority, but when you’re the one who has to sit in jail waiting for your trial, it’s pretty darn important.

The second point is regarding gender-based violence and violence against women: There is an observation to the effect that the vulnerabilities surrounding gender-based violence — and the need for a comprehensive response to these concerns — need to be a broad and general priority, as has been noted in previous reports.

The third point is an observation that this is an ideal topic for the Law Commission of Canada to consider in its review of the criminal law. The Criminal Code has been amended in a piecemeal way — sometimes by this chamber — for decades, and, no doubt, there are cumbersome, repetitive or inconsistent provisions that need comprehensive reform.

The final theme is the need for Gender-based Analysis Plus. I think it’s fair to say that the committee continues to experience frustration with the government in that it does not provide timely information regarding gender-based analysis. That was also the case with this bill. We received that information only days before clause-by-clause consideration, and I think it’s fair to say that the committee was disappointed not to receive that information prior to hearing the minister testify. In order to study a government bill in a serious and comprehensive way, the committee requires timely access to this analysis. The result in this observation is that the committee urges the federal government to provide Gender-based Analysis Plus information in a timely way when the bill is referred to the committee. Failing to do this, the committee may delay consideration of a bill until the committee receives this information.

I want to extend my thanks to the committee members and to the staff who supported the committee in the work on the bill, especially in the unusual circumstance where we had to be both the house of sober first thought and the house of sober second thought with respect to the bill.

Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to 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.

This bill makes several amendments to various acts related to parks and conservation areas, and establishes in law a national park in Labrador — Nunatsiavut — and a marine conservation area in Nunavut, namely Tallurutiup Imanga.

I’m sure that it will surprise no one that I’ll be focusing my remarks on those provisions affecting my home territory of Nunavut.

Inuit in the High Arctic region of what is now Nunavut have been calling for the protection of a marine area in Lancaster Sound since the 1960s. In 2010, the first proposal was brought forward by the government of the day. The proposed area did not include the area that Shell Canada held oil and gas leases in. In 2016, Shell relinquished their leases, and, in 2017, the agreement in principle to establish Tallurutiup Imanga was signed between Parks Canada, the Government of Nunavut and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, or QIA.

Following that was a much-acclaimed whole-of-government approach to define the benefits with Inuit and a management plan that ultimately culminated in an Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement, known as an IIBA, signed on August 1, 2019. Such an agreement is required for any significant changes affecting Inuit owned lands within Nunavut.

The IIBA defines the rights, roles and responsibilities of the signatories as they pertain to Tallurutiup Imanga and includes, but is not limited to, key provisions surrounding continued use and access of Inuit to the area for traditional activities; Inuit stewardship of the area; clarifying the roles of Community Land and Resource Committees — we call them CLARCs — hamlets and Hunters and Trappers Organizations, known as HTOs; and the establishment of key mechanisms such as the Aulattiqatigiit Board. The Aulattiqatigiit Board is of specific importance as it is comprised of representatives from Inuit organizations and the Government of Canada. The IIBA in this connection specifically states that:

. . . Parties shall work together in reaching consensus decisions through the process outlined in this Agreement to guide management of Tallurutiup Imanga . . . .

Unfortunately, here we are four years later, and the board has not been able to finalize an interim management plan for a protected area spanning a huge 109,000 square kilometres. In fact, colleagues, I would draw your attention to section 25 which states that section 18 — that is the section related to the establishment of the borders of Tallurutiup Imanga — has a delayed coming into force. It states:

Section 18 comes into force on the day on which a notice is published in the Canada Gazette confirming that an interim management plan for the Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area has been approved by the Aulattiqatigiit Board, as defined in section 2.2 of the Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement signed on behalf of Inuit of the Qikiqtani Region of Nunavut and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada on August 1, 2019.

In short, this clause confirms what I have just reported to this chamber: the board has been so far unable to resolve the outstanding issues between Inuit and Canada, and, until there is a resolution, we will not see Tallurutiup Imanga formally recognized in law.

Colleagues, another important point to make here is that, in addition to the IIBA, there were several other side agreements for additional benefits to Inuit and impacted communities. These agreements included the establishment of multi-use facilities by Parks Canada that would be used to, among other things, allow for office space to enable the management and monitoring of the area; house equipment for harvesting and monitoring; and provide the capacity for maintaining harvesting equipment. Community users would also have the ability to host events in these spaces which will be important for transfer of cultural knowledge and practices.

Originally, $26 million was provided by Parks Canada to construct five facilities in five different communities, with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, or QIA, agreeing to cover additional cost increases. However, no one could have anticipated the effects of a global pandemic on supply chains and inflation. This has led to an $18 million cost increase. This is an exceptionally large burden to place on a regional Inuit organization with limited resources and many competing priorities for limited funding. To their credit, the QIA has pursued ways of structuring the projects to lower costs to help supplement the cost of operation and maintenance, but the deficit of $18 million persists.

As a direct result, only three of the five planned facilities are currently under way. A related deal between the Government of Nunavut and Transport Canada led to the promise of community harbours in Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay, which are currently in the design phase. Transport Canada has engaged in open and continuous dialogue on the project through a working group consisting of Transport Canada, the Government of Nunavut and QIA.

Conversely, a deal between Inuit and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO, promised small craft harbours in Clyde River and Arctic Bay. DFO informed QIA after the tender process that cost estimates had changed dramatically due to the pandemic and that they would only be able to proceed with one small craft harbour at this time. So work on Clyde River’s harbour is under way, but there is no update on when, if ever, Arctic Bay’s harbour will go back out to tender.

Similarly, there is no information available to Inuit regarding costs and timelines related to both projects. Inquiries from QIA generate the stock response that the department is “looking for solutions.”

Qikiqtani Inuit are working towards increasing Inuit participation in fisheries to advance economic opportunities for Inuit in the economy. The small craft harbours are an important step towards enabling and addressing the significant infrastructure gap in the Arctic.

Senators, I would argue that we have an opportunity in this bill to examine an existential question pertaining to the honour and duty of the Crown. Here we have a marine protected area that Inuit have been advocating for — for decades — and we stand on the cusp of it finally being enshrined in law, but we cannot move forward until we end the standstill between Inuit and Canada over the interim management plan.

The government lauded its whole-of-government approach to negotiating Tallurutiup Imanga. Indeed, one need only look to the August 18, 2017, CBC article entitled, “Feds, Inuit sign unprecedented working arrangement to negotiate Lancaster Sound benefits deal,” which byline reads, “Whole-of-government approach puts onus on federal cabinet to work as one.”

If only.

While there have been improvements to the relationship between Inuit and the Government of Canada, there continues to be frustrations over inconsistent and siloed approaches to Indigenous issues across different departments and even across different sectors within the same department. We see the legislative branch of Parks Canada pushing ahead with this legislation, while the policy branch is unable to resolve key issues with Inuit in the interim management plan.

Parks Canada needs to work with the Inuit organization to address the unprecedented inflation of costs surrounding the multi-use facilities to ensure the promised infrastructure will become reality. Transport Canada has, admirably, worked closely with the Government of Nunavut and Inuit in an open and transparent way to advance their promised community harbours, while DFO’s approach to and progress on the promised small craft harbours remain shrouded in secrecy.

I must observe that, for decades, DFO has excluded Northern Canada — which has by far the longest coastline in Canada — from participating in its well-known Small Craft Harbours program, which is well patronized on Canada’s east and west coasts. Finally, we are seeing this program implemented with the new and welcome small craft harbours in Pangnirtung and Pond Inlet.

DFO is familiar with the challenges and, yes, the costs of building harbours in remote locations like Arctic Bay, which is on the north coast of Baffin Island, at 73 degrees north latitude.

I remember watching the national news as the Prime Minister announced — alongside other cabinet members — the creation of Tallurutiup Imanga from Arctic Bay, where an overflowing community hall full of hunters, fishers and their families was overjoyed to hear of the promised small craft harbour. Now, six years after the initial announcement, I am hearing of great disappointment and frustrations from the mayor, council and citizens of Arctic Bay, asking me when they can expect even the first steps towards their new small craft harbour.

I feel it is incumbent on me, honourable senators, to ensure that we do not debate this bill without also including in our discourse the importance of the government fulfilling all the promises made when the marine conservation area was negotiated and agreed to. We should ensure that every enactment upholds and maintains the honour of the Crown and that the duty to Inuit will be discharged by every department delivering what it promised to deliver.

I wish to congratulate the sponsor of this bill, the Honourable Karen Sorensen. I believe this is the first bill she has sponsored in the Senate. Her pronunciation of the Inuktitut terminology was impressive. I do welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of the principle of the bill, but also, in doing so, to alert the sponsor of the bill — and this is the job of a sponsor; she will know this — to alert the government through her that there are details in the so far imperfect implementation of the bill’s promises and the failure of the government to deliver on promises made to Inuit which were pivotal to achieve Inuit support for the creation of this huge conservation area in the Nunavut Settlement Area.

With that, honourable senators, I look forward to the bill proceeding to committee, where I have, I hope, clearly given notice there are questions I will pose to the minister and the sponsor.

Qujannamiik. Thank you. Taima.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are senators ready for the question?