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?

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation 46 is more wide-reaching and explains that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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