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. Percy E. Downe: I have a point of order. Now that we have a three-month extension, I seek the advice of Your Honour and your officials on the legislative grounds that we’re proceeding on.

My experience has been that messages from the House of Commons to the Senate are always from the Clerk of the respective chamber. For the document that I’m looking at — and I may be reading it wrong — I understand there is no Clerk in the House of Commons; there is an Acting Clerk. Was this document signed by the Acting Clerk or by someone else on their behalf? Is that legitimate?

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: 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?

Hon. Senators: Question.

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

(On motion of Senator Gold, bill, as amended, placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Sorensen, seconded by the Honourable Senator Audette, for the second reading 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.

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]