Honourable senators, I address you today to proceed with the third 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. I do so as a supportive critic.

This legislation proposes significant changes in the management and preservation of our Canadian natural heritage. Bill S-14 brings important changes to the Canada National Parks Act, notably by establishing a new national park reserve and proposing initiatives which include specific regulations for its management and administration.

Moreover, the bill envisages extending the boundaries of seven existing national parks and one national park reserve, plus the renaming of one park. It also aims to intensify legislative measures against the discharge or deposit of harmful substances in these protected areas.

The bill also makes adjustments to the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, focusing on the importance of protecting areas of significant marine biodiversity.

Finally, the bill proposes a modification to the Rouge National Urban Park Act by strengthening the penalties related to the discharge and deposit of substances in this park, thus ensuring its preservation for future generations.

Before I expound further on this bill and the observations I wish to make, I want to reflect a bit on the history and development of our national parks, since they exist from coast to coast to coast, can be found in every province and territory and are instinctively highly valued by all Canadians.

There are presently 38 national parks, 10 national park reserves, and one national urban park. All are protected areas under the Canada National Parks Act and are administered by Parks Canada.

The first national park was created by Sir John A’s Conservative government in 1885 and was initially called Rocky Mountains Park, now known as Banff National Park, the oldest and still the most visited national park in Canada.

My home province of Nova Scotia has two national parks and one national park reserve, and all three couldn’t be more diverse. Sable Island National Park Reserve, established by the Harper government in 2013 — a place which I’ve had the opportunity to visit twice — is a unique experience, home to its iconic horses and one of the nesting grounds of the endangered piping plover. Kejimkujik National Park, located in the interior of southwestern Nova Scotia, is a lovely watershed area that still has the presence of old-growth Acadian forest and much flora unique to the southwestern area of the province. Last, but certainly not least, is Cape Breton Highlands National Park, in my own backyard, the oldest and most visited park in Atlantic Canada. Canada is a huge and diverse country geographically, and these three distinctive parks in one small province illustrate this reality.

Canadians are supportive of the national parks system, and so am I. However, as we create new national parks, national park reserves, national marine conservation areas and expand existing park boundaries, we must be vigilant to ensure that mistakes of the past are never again repeated when dealing with the people who live near the parks and, in particular, those who live on the land where the parks are being expanded or created.

I witnessed — and the people of my hometown of Louisbourg experienced first-hand — the arrogance of the state and the insensitivity of faceless bureaucrats when the decision was made in the early 1960s to partially rebuild the Fortress of Louisbourg. I have already spoken to this matter on second reading, so I won’t repeat all of the details, but the fact remains that my home-town was profoundly impacted by a massive expropriation that turned a thriving seaport into a marginalized village. This is not just a matter of land loss or insufficient financial compensation, although these aspects are crucial. It’s also about the complete disregard shown toward relatively poor and powerless people and the lack of respect for their social and historical inheritance.

My own family, like many others, was directly affected by these actions. My grandmother, at the age of 85, was expropriated and compensated meagrely for historic family land with title going back to the late 18th century. She received $4,000 for 62 acres of land that ran from the harbourfront all the way back to Wolfe’s camp, an area where over 14,000 soldiers were bivouacked in 1758 during the second siege of Louisbourg — the largest military land force ever assembled in what is today Canada.

She was an independent woman who had a challenging life with little money. When she first moved out, she refused to move in with us, instead renting the apartment just down the street. Her house was probably the oldest house extant in the entire community — a two-storey, 18th-century dwelling, with a west‑facing kitchen wall completely constructed from beachstone.

When she moved out, she initially decided to leave most of her belongings and family heirlooms in the house. Soon afterwards, we awoke one morning to discover that Parks Canada had gone in and bulldozed the house to the ground without consulting or telling anyone. I’ll always remember how sad my grandmother was that day when we drove her up to the old homestead and she saw it completely flattened — everything in it smashed and unsalvageable. That hurt her more than the expropriation. The message that she and her family received was clear: “You have no value, your history has no value, your community has no value.”

I’ve always appreciated the history of the fortress. I was always proud of the history of my hometown. How many Canadians realize that in 1757 — the year before the second and final siege — Louisbourg was the third-busiest seaport by volume in North America, trailing only Boston and Philadelphia. New York had to be content with being the fourth-busiest port. The community strongly supported the reconstruction. It was an exciting time for the town.

The fortress took 25 years to build and lasted less than 15 years — a total lifetime of 40 years. But the community that my family was a part of was over 200 years old. However, there was no respect for our history, and no appreciation for our community or the people who built it.

The further decision not to maintain the road between Louisbourg and Gabarus — also taken without consultation or consideration for the residents — further symbolized this disconnected approach. Although the road was a provincial road, Parks Canada inherited responsibility for its upkeep and maintenance since it was almost entirely on park land. Parks Canada then deliberately stopped the upkeep on the road, letting it deteriorate to the point where they could announce to the province, after a few years, that the road was too dangerous and had to be closed. They erected barriers on both ends in 1969, and the barriers remain to this day.

The entire episode demonstrates a lack of consideration for the human impact of administrative decisions. Parks Canada, in its zeal to protect and preserve, seems to have forgotten the people living in and around these natural spaces. Today, I wish to express my lingering concerns regarding the approach adopted by Parks Canada in the context of Bill S-14, particularly in terms of managing access to national parks and the repercussions on neighbouring communities. Despite the assurances of officials from Parks Canada, I remain skeptical about the current method of managing access, which seems little different from that used 50 years ago.

Each national park and each neighbouring community has their own issues and characteristics. The one-size-fits-all approach proposed cannot adequately address these varied challenges.

Furthermore, I am concerned about the lack of recognition and preservation of the heritage of communities affected by park modifications. The history of West Louisbourg, Kennington Cove and Deep Cove, for example, seems to have been erased without a trace or recognition of their past existence. The current efforts of Parks Canada to engage expropriated communities, such as in Forillon, are commendable but insufficient to address the scope and depth of historical and cultural impacts.

Honourable senators, I would also like to address an issue that emerged during the committee study of Bill S-14 — a matter that directly concerned the Innu Nation, and highlights the challenges of government management of the rights of Indigenous peoples.

We witnessed testimonies and legal arguments revealing flaws in the process of drafting the bill, particularly regarding the consultation with the Innu Nation. It was evident to the committee that the government failed to consult them adequately before introducing the bill, leading to avoidable frustrations and conflicts.

The central dispute concerned the integration of the NunatuKavut community, as they are recognized as a “traditional land user” in the text of the bill. The Innu Nation — having played a crucial role in the establishment of the Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve by Bill S-14 — found themselves in an unexpected and problematic situation when they learned of the sudden inclusion of another group not recognized under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. This treatment raises questions about the government’s commitment to consulting Indigenous peoples, as well as its understanding of the complex dynamics among different Indigenous groups.

I would like to share a passage from the testimony of the Honourable Peter Penashue, a negotiator on behalf of the Innu Nation, at our committee:

We weren’t even consulted. The agreement says that if there are any changes, we have to be consulted. We found out through people who were doing some research.

I specify that an amendment was brought to the committee to remove the mention of the NunatuKavut community in Bill S-14. Although the NunatuKavut claim is, at least for the present, apparently rejected, their inclusion in the initial drafting of the bill was pure politics, and the result of lobbying by Liberal Party partisans with insider connections. This is no way to draft a bill, and no way to treat people, and it certainly doesn’t reflect an approach that is either respectful, consultative or transparent.

The promise of consultations and involvement of Indigenous peoples, reiterated by the government, proved to be superficial in this case, highlighting a significant gap between rhetoric and reality.

I would also like to draw your attention to the parallel between the management of Bill C-21 and that of Bill S-14 concerning the government’s approach toward consultations with Indigenous communities.

Last week, during the debates on Bill C-21, a proposed amendment by my colleague Senator Boisvenu — to ensure thorough consultations with Indigenous peoples — received a negative response from the Government Representative in the Senate. This decision highlights a worrying trend of the government neglecting the voices of people in the development of policies that directly affect them.

Minister LeBlanc, during his appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs regarding Bill C-21, claimed to have conducted extensive consultations with various groups, including Indigenous groups, as well as other communities affected by firearms legislation. However, the testimonies collected tell a different story. Firearms controllers, Indigenous representatives and other key actors clearly indicated that they had not been adequately consulted, if at all, on the drafting of Bill C-21.

Faced with this troubling divergence, the amendment proposed by Senator Boisvenu aimed to correct this shortfall by requiring mandatory and meaningful consultations on any regulation affecting the rights of Indigenous groups, communities and peoples. The amendment was not just a response to the lack of adequate consultation, but also a measure aimed at aligning legislative practice with the commitments ostensibly made by the government.

The rejection of this amendment by the government raises profound questions about its actual commitment to the principles of consultation and respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples — indeed the rights of every and all Canadians.

Honourable senators, in reflecting on Bill S-14, I would like to emphasize the importance of deepening our consultations, particularly by reinviting the House of Commons to consider a more exhaustive approach. My feeling is that the bill, as it stands, would benefit from more diverse perspectives and a more thorough examination.

It is also essential that the industrial and mining sector — whose economic impact is significant in many regions affected by Bill S-14 — be consulted more extensively. The value of their perspectives and their specific knowledge of the challenges and opportunities related to this bill is indispensable for fully assessing its economic impact and the practical repercussions.

Similarly, particular attention should be paid to the voices of mayors and local officials of small towns. As representatives of the communities directly affected by Bill S-14, their understanding of local needs and issues is critical for assessing the real impact of this bill on the daily lives of citizens.

The historical example of Louisbourg, where massive expropriation led to dramatic consequences for the community, should serve as a lesson. It is essential that we learn from the past to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the application of Bill S-14. This part of our history underscores the need for careful planning and thorough consultation to avoid adverse effects on communities, land management, heritage and people.

In conclusion, I appeal to my colleagues to recognize the importance of expanding and deepening consultations around Bill S-14. It is our duty, as legislators, to ensure that all relevant perspectives are taken into account in order to ensure balanced, well-considered and beneficial legislation for all Canadians. I thank you for your attention on this important issue.