Hon. Peter M. Boehm moved second reading of Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-248, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act (Ojibway National Urban Park of Canada), which passed the House of Commons on April 26, 2023, after a near‑unanimous third reading vote of 319 to 1 and which was introduced in the Senate the same day. It is my expectation that this bill will be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, and it is my hope that it will be referred before the summer recess.

Given the time of year and the hour of the day, and the fact that the principle of the bill has overwhelming support and should thus result in a relatively quick second reading, I promise I will not speak for the allotted 45 minutes.

I thank the bill’s sponsor, Mr. Brian Masse, Member of Parliament for Windsor West, where the park will be located, for his dedicated work for many years on this significant project, both outside and inside Parliament. The idea for this bill was initiated by a public town hall hosted by Mr. Masse in 2019, but the fight to establish Ojibway national urban park has been ongoing for decades. I wish to acknowledge the residents of the Windsor region and the local Indigenous peoples who have been working diligently and passionately to protect this significant green space and its ecosystem.

As a senator from southern Ontario — my hometown of Kitchener is not far from Windsor — I am honoured to have been asked to shepherd this legislation through the Senate. This is also important to me as a staunch and long-time advocate for reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous peoples.

This is one bill, colleagues, where I will not refer to any clauses because if you have read it, you will have found it to be little more than longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates and 304 instances of the word “thence.” Indeed, Samuel de Champlain’s astrolabe might prove useful in that regard.

The bill itself sets out the boundaries of the approximately 900 acres of publicly owned land that will become Ojibway national urban park: Ojibway Park, Spring Garden Natural Area, Black Oak Heritage Park, Tallgrass Prairie Heritage Park, Ojibway Prairie Provincial Nature Reserve and Ojibway Shores. Of note is that Ojibway Shores, a 33-acre green space, is the only remaining undeveloped natural shoreline in the Windsor-Detroit area and is home to 130 endangered species.

Crucially, ownership of the land on which Ojibway Shores is located was also recently transferred in May from the Windsor Port Authority, under Transport Canada, to Parks Canada. That had been a long-standing hurdle, now overcome, on the journey toward creating Ojibway national urban park.

Colleagues, the lands that compose the future Ojibway national urban park — including the Detroit River — are home to hundreds of endangered species, including butterflies, birds, other fauna and trees, and it also mitigates flooding due to climate change.

Further, as you all know, North America’s busiest border crossing is between Windsor and Detroit, and is currently served by the Ambassador Bridge. In 2025, the long-awaited Gordie Howe International Bridge is expected to be completed and opened to traffic, also between Windsor and Detroit. With six lanes for vehicle traffic — three Canada-bound and three going into the United States — and one multi-use lane for pedestrians and cyclists, the new bridge will serve as a vital new link for people and trade between Canada and the United States at our busiest crossing.

However, progress for the economy, including increased tourism, often comes with hardship for the environment. With thousands of vehicles, including transport trucks, expected to cross the bridge every day for business and ecotourism, as is already the case for the Ambassador Bridge, the impact on the local ecosystem, especially endangered species, in the adjacent lands of the proposed Ojibway national urban park will increase significantly.

Compared to the Parks Canada process, the more expedient process of this bill, which will ensure the impacted land and ecosystem are protected sooner once the bill is enacted, is partly why local Indigenous communities and environmental groups, along with the City of Windsor, whose city council in April 2022 voted unanimously for a resolution supporting Bill C-248, are all in favour of this bill.

Also, the creation of the park and the resulting protection and preservation of its land and species will offer significant mental health benefits as residents of the local communities and surrounding areas will be encouraged to get outside and enjoy the park. We all saw how important access to green and outdoor spaces was during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic when lockdowns and social distancing were in effect.

Colleagues, in my introduction, I referred to reconciliation. It is important to note that along with the City of Windsor; the Wildlands League, a major national conservation organization; and the Friends of Ojibway Prairie, a volunteer group that promotes public awareness of the biological and historical importance of the Ojibway Prairie Complex, the Caldwell First Nation also offers its vital support for Bill C-248.

On October 28, 2022, during consideration of Bill C-248 at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Mary Duckworth, Chief of the Caldwell First Nation, appeared as a staunch supporter of the bill, the process it has undertaken and the ultimate creation of Ojibway national urban park. In responding to a question from Mr. Masse about whether Caldwell First Nation views the park as reconciliatory — after claims by Chief Duckworth that Caldwell First Nation was not meaningfully consulted by the federal government about the Gordie Howe International Bridge, which is being constructed on its ancestral territory — Chief Duckworth spoke about the importance of action in reconciliation. She said:

In truth and reconciliation, we talk about that, and the truth is that we’re trying to create a national park through a legislative framework so that it is solid and it will be there.

The reconciliation part comes with action. There can be no truth and reconciliation without actions from the governments that sit over top of the nations. We like to see ourselves as equals to you; however, we are not treated as equals, as you know.

She went on to say:

Being able to have truth and reconciliation means exactly what we’re doing. Look at us all working together at different levels of government, as well as non-government, special interests and people who care about the environment. We’re all at the table.

We’re all waiting. . . .

In closing on that question, with a specific reference to Parliament enacting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in June 2021, Chief Duckworth stated that:

. . . we know Canada has aligned itself with the rights of indigenous people. Where is Canada at with that? Now that Canada has adopted that, it’s a piece that we need to look at when we’re developing these parks and respecting what is happening.

Colleagues, as Chief Duckworth made clear, and as we have heard so much in the past few years as we discuss reconciliation and the nation-to-nation relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples, words are nice, but they’re nothing without action.

The treaty rights to the Anishinaabe territory on which the parcels of land that will compose Ojibway national urban park are held by the peoples of the Three Fires Confederacy. That is the Anishinaabeg in the Windsor area, which comprises the Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomi peoples.

I understand that Parks Canada is actively engaged with the Caldwell First Nation and the Walpole Island First Nation on co‑management agreements in which both nations are interested. According to the Parks Canada website, both nations have also:

. . . expressed strong interest in . . . the potential of the park as a place for traditional and cultural practices, a place to demonstrate leadership in conservation and stewardship, and a place with potential for economic benefit for their communities.

So, colleagues, Ojibway national urban park is not just a park but an example of reconciliation in action.

As Chief Duckworth said at committee in the other place, part of the reason getting the park established through this bill is so important not just to the local First Nations but also to the residents of the Windsor area is that it is a concrete, legislated framework.

That leads me to address the concerns about the competing processes underway to create Ojibway national urban park. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, establishing Ojibway national urban park is a long-standing goal of many stakeholders, including Parks Canada. The goal is not in dispute but, rather, the path to achieve it.

I will be brief in summarizing this debate at second reading as it is during eventual review by the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources that these technical and very important details should be studied.

Mr. Masse, Member of Parliament for Windsor West, introduced Bill C-248 in the House of Commons on February 9, 2022, after a public town hall in August 2019 where the plan to create Ojibway national urban park was initiated. It was not until two years later, in August 2021, that Parks Canada launched its national urban parks program. According to the backgrounder on the program available on Parks Canada’s website:

The new National Urban Parks program will build on the many successes of the Rouge National Urban Park, exploring different approaches that involve working with partners to develop collaborative and innovative management and governance frameworks.

The backgrounder further states that:

Parks Canada is developing a national urban parks policy to guide the designation and management of national urban parks. The Policy will provide a flexible framework in recognition of the unique characteristics and local circumstances of each national urban park, such as local Indigenous authorities, while also ensuring that national urban parks across the country meet a common set of standards.

That is all well and good, and Parks Canada is, of course, an agency of which all Canadians should be proud for its stewardship of our best-in-the-world national parks. However, while Bill C-248 has, between February 2022 and today, gone through the entire legislative process in the other place, with extensive public consultation before and during, and is now being debated in this chamber, the Parks Canada national urban parks policy is, nearly two years after its launch, still in draft form. In fact, its website, as of two weeks ago, on May 23, when it was last modified says:

Over the coming months Parks Canada will prepare a first edition of the National Urban Parks Policy. . . .

I do not believe, colleagues, that Bill C-248 is cutting any corners, neither in terms of consultation nor due diligence. What I do believe, as someone with a few decades of experience in public policy and governance, both as a federal public servant and as a parliamentarian, is that this debate comes down to bureaucratic process versus action.

The approximately 900 acres of publicly owned land that will compose Ojibway national urban park is an area of significant biodiversity that is home to hundreds of endangered species.

Protecting the land and conserving its natural environment is vital for the flora and fauna that call it home, for the region’s human residents who rely on the green space to lead active lives conducive to their physical and mental health, for the regional economy on both sides of the international border and for the strengthening of the nation-to-nation relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples who have called these lands home since time immemorial.

All of this, while the explicit goal of stakeholders on all sides, will happen sooner through this legislation than it will through the national urban parks policy of Parks Canada.

I would encourage all honourable senators interested in this legislation, and especially members of the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to review the debate on this bill in the other place, as well as the transcript of the meeting held last October 28 at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

While there are indeed questions about process and consultation, the creation of Ojibway national urban park — the very principle of the bill — has overwhelming support both inside Parliament from all parties, including the government, and outside Parliament, including from Parks Canada.

Therefore, colleagues, I encourage senators to vote to refer Bill C-248 to the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources expediently, before the summer recess, so the bill and any concerns may be studied in depth by the committee when we return in the fall.

Thank you.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Would Senator Housakos take a question?

Senator Boehm: Senator, thank you very much for your comments. Near the end of your comments, you referred to both the United States and Australia as having foreign agent registry-type legislation.

In the case of the Americans, it goes back to 1938. It was definitely pre-internet, leaflets, newspapers and that sort of thing. In Australia, it was 2018, so it is much more recent. The Australian legislation has a component in it that would require any former cabinet minister who acts on behalf of a foreign entity to register or face sanctions, and in both cases there are sanctions there.

As you put this forward, I’m wondering to what extent you’ve been influenced by these two bits of legislation from other countries, given that there’s much consideration going on in other jurisdictions, particularly Europe at this time, to look at ways and means.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Will Senator Housakos take a question?

Senator Housakos: Absolutely.

Senator Boehm: Thank you very much for an interesting and, I would say, comprehensive speech. My concern, of course, is also with the treatment of the Uighur minority in Xinjiang province, and I have worked on this for some years and in fact, on the famous case of Hussein Jalil, I go back to 2006.

My question is, however, a very specific one. I ask because I simply don’t know the answer. You cited some U.S. legislation and measures that other countries have taken. I know there was a declaration from the European Parliament because I have read that as well. But I’m wondering whether you have any sense of the impact of that legislation in the U.S. — in other words, how it has been applied — because it would raise, I think, certain resource questions — and I don’t have answers to that either — but in terms of how, whether it is through CBSA or other entities or in fact through our missions and consulates in China that this would be applied. I’m just very curious. Thanks.

Senator Housakos: As you know, it has only been a few months now since the United States legislature passed their legislation banning all products coming in from Xinjiang. The truth of the matter is I’m not sure how that legislation on the U.S. side has been applied. I’m by no means an expert on how the Americans conduct their trade.

One thing I do believe is that this particular bill will make it a lot less time-consuming and a lot less bureaucratic for CBSA because any bill of lading coming to any Canadian port would be turned back. This is an acknowledgment, after tons and tons of international evidence from groups of everything that’s going on right now in the food industry, in the cotton industry, in that area — all of that activity is being done using forced labour of the Uighur people.

I think this would be the simplest thing. Right now, we have a complicated bill in place which places the onus of proof on CBSA to come up with evidence that the products coming in from Xinjiang are basically products that have been manufactured or put together by slave labour.

This bill simplifies the actual application of what we’re trying to do, which is to make sure that no product made by forced labour comes to our shores. No one can convince me that, over the last two or three years, with the law that we currently have on the books, only one container identified as having products manufactured in Xinjiang by slave labour has arrived here. I find that outrageous. It’s hypocritical for us, knowing all the evidence of what’s going on in that region to assume that the vast majority of products — as I said, tomatoes from the agricultural industry, cotton from the area, solar platforms, industrial equipment — that nothing else has been imported from Xinjiang. All of this stuff is well known around the world. There’s nobody that denies that these products are being built, manufactured and produced, on the backs of slave labour of the Uighur people.

I hope I answered your question. I think this bill will simplify our response for managing the risks of accepting products that are coming here, having been manufactured by slave labour.