Protecting Canada’s Natural Wonders Bill
Bill to Amend--Second Reading
October 26, 2023
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.
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.
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.
Are honourable senators ready for the question?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)
