Bill C-23 (Historical)

Historic Places of Canada Act

An Act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage

This enactment enacts the Historic Places of Canada Act , which provides for the designation of places, persons and events that are of national historic significance or national interest and fosters the protection and conservation of the heritage value of the designated places.
The Act, among other things,
(a) sets out the powers, duties and functions of the federal minister responsible for the Act respecting, among other things,
(i) the designation of places, persons and events that are of national historic significance or national interest,
(ii) the protection and conservation of the heritage value of certain places that are of national historic significance or national interest,
(iii) the protection and conservation of certain archaeological resources,
(iv) the implementation of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and
(v) the establishment of a program for the commemoration of deceased prime ministers of Canada at their grave sites or other appropriate places;
(b) continues the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and modifies its composition, including to provide for the appointment of representatives for First Nations, Inuit and Métis;
(c) requires the establishment and maintenance of a public register that includes certain information about designated places, persons and events and permits the exclusion of information from the register in certain circumstances;
(d) imposes obligations for the protection and conservation of the heritage value of certain designated places that are under the administration of federal ministers or certain Crown corporations, including
(i) the obligation to ensure that the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada is taken into account before an action is carried out that may result in a physical change to one of those designated places that may affect its heritage value, and
(ii) the obligation to consult with the Parks Canada Agency before that action is carried out and before the disposition of one of those designated places;
(e) contains provisions respecting navigation on certain canals that are designated places;
(f) authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting certain designated places; and
(g) contains provisions respecting the enforcement of the Act.
The Act also contains transitional provisions, makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Historic Sites and Monuments Act .

Historic Places of Canada Act

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I struggle to understand why this bill had first reading in June of last year and is only being brought back now for second reading, almost a year later, if this is something the government feels is so important. It seems like the government lacks urgency on this, as with other things, like the concurrence debate we just had. There is no urgency there.

Going through law school, I was always told that the devil is in the details, and I have some details that I want the member to comment on.

With this piece of legislation, the minister would have the ability to “restrict or prohibit the navigation, anchoring or mooring of vessels in historic canals”. The Trent-Severn, for example, in Ontario, is a massive tourist draw and people use it all the time. The minister could shut it down with the powers in this bill. The other troubling part in the bill is that these powers could extend to lands adjoining or incidental to historic places, which could be privately owned lands. What safeguards is the member willing to put in place so there can be no overreach by the minister with respect to using historic canals or lands adjoining historic places?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would suggest that there is the issue of ministerial accountability. If there was an issue of closing down a canal, I suspect there would be a great deal of thought before a minister would do that, as it goes far beyond a department having to make a decision by itself. There are opposition members who would be more than happy to hold the minister accountable if, in fact, a poor decision was being made. That is not to say that our government would make a poor decision.

The member opposite also made reference to why we waited so long. Bringing forward legislation to deal with child care, dental benefits and a wide spectrum of issues to support Canadians, even though the Conservatives did not support most of that stuff, takes time to get through. If only we had more time to bring things back.

I can assure the member that it is a priority for the government. We do want to see the legislation pass, and hopefully the Conservative Party would be sympathetic to allowing this bill to pass, given what I suspect is the unanimous support of the House.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a speech on Bill C-23 given in December, the Bloc Québécois stated its interest in the issue and its intention of supporting the bill.

We support this bill because it is in keeping with Canada's desire to honour its international commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It recognizes indigenous knowledge, which could help the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.

My question is this: Will the bill be serious enough and tough enough to stop real estate developers from demolishing historic sites, tourist attractions, in order to do business and make major profits at the expense of the environment and this country's history?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is yes.

Through time, what we have witnessed is that people continue to understand and appreciate the importance of our heritage and our buildings. To this very day, I find it somewhat shameful that the city of Winnipeg lost its original city hall. It was an absolutely beautiful building. Obviously I was not part of the decision-making process back in the 1960s, but it was such a beautiful, historic building.

I do not think for a moment we would have lost that with today's values about or attitudes towards the importance of preserving our heritage. This legislation has teeth. Obviously, it will be supported by regulations. Support for the legislation goes far beyond just the House of Commons, as it also incorporates indigenous community support and provincial support.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's legislation calls for ensuring indigenous representation. We know the government has failed in so many ways in providing respect to indigenous peoples. We see this with the boiled water advisories. We see the lack of housing that is by indigenous, for indigenous. These are all crucial elements where the government has, quite frankly, failed over the last few years.

Could my colleague tell us how the government would step up to ensure that its investments are adequate to ensure indigenous representation and participation on these boards and in the activities foreseen by the bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree to disagree with the member opposite. I believe the government has made significant strides. In fact, I would suggest that no government in the history of Canada has made more efforts, provided more financial resources and taken more action than the Liberal government over the last six years in addressing the importance of the relationship between Canada and indigenous people.

Within this legislation specifically, there is call for action 79, which ensures there is a guaranteed partnership within the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. It also ensures that, when the board is making decisions, indigenous considerations have to be taken into account.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, permit me for a moment, because I am sure members felt the same sense of nostalgia for Pier 21, to call out the name of the woman who made it possible, who was a dear friend of mine, the late Ruth Goldbloom. I also want, for my hon. friend for Winnipeg North, to give a shout-out to Gail Asper, who was a similar driving force in her work and gave us the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg.

I definitely support Bill C-23, but it needs work. Those in the heritage community find it strange and cannot figure out why this piece of legislation could fail to use the same terminology for a “historic place”, which is something people are used to. This throws a great deal of uncertainty into how we protect our national sites. How many Crown corporation sites are not covered? How many federal buildings that are designated important to our heritage are left in a sort of murky state? Therefore, I will be bringing forward amendments that flag that.

As this is the first chance I have had to speak to Bill C-23, I would ask the hon. member this: Would the government be open to amendments to improve the legislation to ensure it meets the needs and demands of the heritage community?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be disappointed if the leader of the Green Party did not bring amendments. She consistently does that.

The short answer to the member's question would be that the Government of Canada has demonstrated over the years that we are very much open to amendments if they add strength and make the legislation better, whether they are coming from Liberals, Conservatives, NDP or Green members. The idea behind this is to make better and strong legislation. As I said, it is establishing a healthy framework.

The member also pointed out individuals, and there are so many individuals in our communities who do not necessarily hold elected office but who contribute immensely to ensuring that the proper recognition and designation is given to so many things, such as people, events and places. I would like to express my appreciation for the fine work they do in preserving and encouraging future generations of Canadians to have the value we see in heritage sites today.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak today. I will be sharing my time with the hard-working member for Dufferin—Caledon.

This is a piece of legislation with good things in it that I think everybody in the House will support. It also has some things that speak to the importance of the committee system and getting a bill to committee so experts can weigh in and highlight any potential shortcomings, and any potential unintended consequences that may result from legislation that tries to do as much as this bill tries to do, which is not incredibly clear. I think even the government recognizes that because it brought forward this bill in June of last year, and this is the first time that we are actually debating it in the House.

On the front of things that we can all agree on in the House, the move to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to include first nations, Inuit and Métis representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, is really important. That representation is a significant step and an important part of the legislation.

There are other things we might agree on. I think it is really important to preserve our heritage. It is really important to Canadians to have the ability to visit places of historical significance and learn from the stories that are told at those places. I would encourage all members of Parliament to visit as many of these places, while we have this opportunity to meet Canadians, as we can.

I am going to use this opportunity to speak to one such place that I would highly encourage members of Parliament, particularly members from the government, the NDP, and even the Bloc, to come and visit. It is listed on the Canadian Register of Historic Places. This place is right in the heart of my constituency. In fact, it is about three minutes from where I grew up in the town of Devon and it is the Leduc No. 1 Discovery Well site.

I will read from the Canadian Register of Historic Places, for everyone's benefit, because I am sure that once folks hear this, they will learn some things and it will drive them to want to come to visit to learn some more. It says, “The heritage value of the Leduc No. 1 Discovery Well site lies in its association with the finding of massive petroleum deposits in Alberta and its connection to the dramatic social and economic transformation of the province in the second half of the twentieth century.”

I will break away from what the register says to point out that it also led to a “dramatic social and economic transformation” of the entire country. We all, and our kids and grandkids, for those of us who have kids and grandkids, have benefited from this, and future generations will also benefit from what happened in 1947 at the Leduc No. 1 Discovery Well site.

The Canadian Register of Historic Places goes on to say:

In the first half of the twentieth century, Canada was almost entirely dependent upon the United States for its oil supply. As Canada's industries were established and grew, the demand for domestic oil to power the country's economic engine grew. The Imperial Oil Company Ltd., founded in Ontario in 1880, began to explore for oil and gas deposits in Western Canada in the 1910s. For three decades, they were unsuccessful, drilling 133 dry wells in the region. On February 13, 1947, however, the Leduc No. 1 Discovery Well blew in to the delight of the spectators assembled for the occasion. The eruption of oil from Leduc No. 1 triggered extensive exploration for further petroleum deposits as seismic teams, geologists, and geophysicists fanned out across Alberta in search of “black gold.” Though the Leduc field was a major find, new fields with even larger petroleum reserves would be discovered in subsequent years.

Again, I will break away to speak to the relevance of this bill. I am guessing that for some members of the House, this is a new story, a story they had not heard before. It is a story that is absolutely critical to our history as a country, certainly to the history of my province and my region, and to our economic history, our economic story in Canada. If more members of Parliament maybe understood this story, took the time to visit parts of the country where maybe there would be a little bit of a different view on political issues, the issues that we discuss in here every day, maybe we would have better debates with more context than we have right now.

I will continue again. This is from the Canadian Registry of Historic Places, which this bill addresses and seeks to fine-tune in our approach to our Canadian history.

It states:

The spectacular discovery of oil at Leduc in 1947 marked a watershed in Alberta's economic and social life. The find attracted massive American capital investment into the province and resulted in the creation of wells, refineries, and pipelines throughout the province. Oil exploration also uncovered another valuable resource under Alberta's surface—natural gas. The population boomed in subsequent decades as fortune-seekers—many of them well-educated professionals—flocked to Alberta to tap into the province's new-found wealth. New towns were established near oil fields and both Edmonton and Calgary grew dramatically. Edmonton became a service centre for the oil fields and home to numerous refineries, while Calgary developed into the administrative and managerial heartland of Alberta's burgeoning petrochemical industry. The tremendous wealth generated by the province's reserves of oil and gas also accelerated the demographic shift in Alberta from a rural to an urban population and funded the creation of universities and colleges, galleries and museums, and hospitals.

That is where the entry in the registry ends.

I would point out the last phrase, “funded the creation of universities and colleges, galleries and museums, and hospitals”. The funding accrued to the benefit of not just Albertans but also Canadians across the country through transfer programs, tax revenues and all the different economic mechanisms this country has established over the years. Some of these are widely supported and others widely debated among my constituents. There is no question that the health care system we enjoy today, our education system, our post-secondary education system and the social safety nets across this country, from coast to coast, in every province and every territory, are owed to a great extent to the benefit that has come from this one plot of land in the centre of Leduc County as recognized on the Canadian Register of Historic Places.

In closing, as we debate really important issues around the environment, health, immigration and all the different things that we debate day after day with an eye to making Canada better, I would encourage members of Parliament who have the opportunity to fly to Edmonton. It sounds like in the coming weeks, we will finally get direct flights into Edmonton again. I encourage members to take a 15-minute drive from the airport to visit this site of historic importance in Leduc County at Leduc No. 1.

This is what my Conservative colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent has done. I had an opportunity to host him at Leduc No. 1 at one point in time. I gave him a bit of a tour of the Canadian Energy Museum there. It was interesting because he came out and a tour bus pulled up. I was kind of excited, as a member of Parliament, to introduce my distinguished colleague from Quebec to the folks on the tour bus. Lo and behold, the folks got off the bus, and all their faces lit up as they saw this celebrity. It was a bus full of tourists from Quebec visiting Alberta. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent was an absolute celebrity as he shook hands with every single person on that bus, and I grew to understand why this gentleman is such a legend in his riding and his home province of Quebec.

I have used my time to give one example of the potential benefits of this legislation if we get it right. I am really looking forward to looking at some of the potential challenges with the legislation at committee and hearing what experts from across the country have to say on some important parts of this bill.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also of the opinion that Bill C-23 should be sent to committee so that we can make any necessary changes.

My colleague ended his speech by talking about the challenges with this bill. Even just looking at clause 2, the definitions, I do not see a clear definition of what constitutes a person or place of national historic significance or national interest.

I also do not see, in subclause 24(1), how much time the minister has to support a request for designation from the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.

Does my colleague see the same challenges? What other challenges does he see?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous potential challenges with this bill, and among the least of them might be definitions. I think that speaks to why the government has taken so long to actually bring it forward for debate.

I have other concerns. We are a country right now, over the last eight years, which has had a significant challenge building anything. I want to make sure that, as we make efforts to protect our Canadian heritage, we do not inadvertently make it harder and harder to build anything in this country. That is an important part of the conversation that we can look at when we get this bill to committee, and we hope to hear more of that through the debate in the House today.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague is really putting forward a changed position from that of the Conservative Party five years ago. Then, the committee on the environment had a study on heritage sites, and Conservatives said that although they agreed in principle with the need to support indigenous perspectives in heritage sites, they felt this would represent additional stresses to the federal government's fiscal framework.

I get the sense the member is providing a new position in which the Conservative Party believes that it is important for indigenous peoples to be represented and that there should be adequate resources to ensure their participation in these important sites. Could the member clarify this? Have the Conservatives changed their position from five years ago?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have absolutely not changed our position. This is a different piece of legislation. The member has been around this place for a long time and understands that different legislation requires a different approach. There are important conversations we need to have.

I represent an area with a significant indigenous population, with many living off reserve. The community of Maskwacis is just south of my constituency, which is already the largest constituency in the country by population by a long way. I take my role as a member of Parliament to be very important, and I hear from constituents and constantly learn from them every day. Again, this is why it is so important to get this bill to committee and make sure we hear from experts from across the country and every community to ensure that we always have the strongest legislation we can.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to be able to discuss the bill today. I obviously think there are some very good things within the bill. I think that it would set up the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. It would add indigenous representation in response to truth and reconciliation recommendation number 79.

I would quickly note that the piece of legislation before us had its first reading in June 2022. Here we are in March 2023, and it is coming up for second reading. I wonder why it has taken the government so long to do this.

I was a history major in university. I love history. I love the concept of expanding Canadian historic sites from coast to coast to coast. I love the idea of finding ways to make sure we maintain them, like maintaining birthplaces of prime ministers. Therefore, there are certainly things within the bill that I like and am very happy to support. However, going through law school, we were always told that the devil is in the details. When I look at the bill, I describe it as “the iceberg bill”.

I question why the Liberals have designed the bill in this way. If they really wanted unanimous consent for a bill like this, why did they put so many things in this particular piece of legislation that, quite frankly, can be considered controversial? I want to talk about those, and I am going to explain the actual pieces of the legislation that I find could be controversial. When I then combine this with how I have so little faith in the government to do what is right, it gives me incredible pause.

For example, the government says it has done a lot to prevent the importation of goods made with forced labour from the Xinjiang region of China. However, we had a concurrence debate on that today, and the evidence is that the government did not do anything. This is one reason that I do not have a lot of faith in how it is going to implement certain sections of the bill.

I want to talk about this. The first thing is that the bill would give the minister powers to recognize the national historic significance or national interest of places. The minister can make that designation. I think that is absolutely fine, but when it has taken place, the minister gets other powers. That is what I am concerned about, and I want to talk a bit about that.

With respect to historic places and canals, this bill would give the minister the power to restrict and prohibit the navigation, anchoring and mooring of vessels in historic canals. If the government designates a different waterway as a historic place or historic waterway, will those powers extend there? For example, if we were to dedicate a certain portion of waters on the west coast of Canada as a new historic site or historic waterway, would the minister then have the power to determine whether navigation can go through that? If we think of the tourism industry on the west coast with the cruise ships, etc., would the minister be able to limit where the cruise ships can operate? That is sort of deeply problematic to me.

Right here in Ontario, we have the Trent-Severn system. Thousands of Canadians have cottages along this system, and the minister would have the power to restrict or prohibit vessels from mooring or operating in the Trent-Severn Waterway. The government will say that the minister would never do that unless they absolutely had to, but the reasons for being able to make that designation are not defined in the bill. It is a blank cheque. I am sorry to say this, but I would never give the government a blank cheque for anything because it just has such a terrible track record on things like this.

The bill is highly problematic, and it has to be studied at committee. I am very hopeful the government members, recognizing how important it is to add indigenous representation to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, will put some guardrails in place to restrain the minister's powers to make these kinds of restrictions or prohibitions. That is the way to build consensus with all parties and make sure the bill will have speedy passage.

The government does not have a good track record of doing that, though. The general approach has been that it is the government's way or the highway. Therefore, I am asking its members today to make sure that there is going to be a very collaborative approach to how we do this.

The member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin spoke about the Leduc No. 1 well and the historic significance of that, which could be designated by the minister. The minister has the power to designate a historic place. That is fine. I think there are somewhere near 36,000 submissions on this. These designations would take place from coast to coast to coast.

The devil is in the details of that, because the bill also gives the power that the minister may have the authority over lands adjoining or incidental to historic places. What does that mean? Why has that not been clearly defined in the act?

Let us say, for example, the government decides to declare a historic place near someone's property. Then it says the windmill on the property is taking away from the historic place, and that person needs to take the windmill down or the government needs a chunk of that person's land. What are the rules regarding that? What is going to restrain the minister's power?

Someone might say that is overreaching, except the government does not have a good track record of collaborating. The government does not have a good track record of ensuring that it does not overreach. I can go on about the challenges of the minister having power over lands adjoining or incidental to historic places.

Have the Liberals defined what “incidental” means? I think we all understand what “adjoining” means, but have they defined what “incidental” means? Of course they have not. Why have they done it? Why have they included language like this in a bill that they say everyone should support? It is sloppy drafting. It is trying to put way too much into the bill that should not be in it.

There are other powers in this bill that were not mentioned in the member's speech and have not been discussed. There are new offences created under this act, and if a person is convicted under this act, the court could order the seizure of an item or property.

Let us think back to my example of the Trent-Severn. If they say someone cannot operate on the Trent-Severn, then someone who has a cottage there decides they need to get in their boat to go to the grocery store, because those exist, then they could be charged and the boat could be seized. That is a problem, but wait, there is more.

They are also setting up the historic places protection fund. Where is the funding for that going to come from? It is also not clear in the bill if the proceeds of seizures will go into the historic places protection fund.

We can think of the conflict of interest that exists if the government says the more things we seize, the more money we have in the fund. We know the government likes to tax everything, whether it is the escalator tax on alcohol or whether it is tripling the carbon tax. The government is addicted to tax and addicted to revenue.

If there is an incentive in this bill for the government to seize property or personal property and use those proceeds, then we have to be very concerned that it is exactly what it is going to do. This bill, I agree, should be supported and it should go to committee, but the committee needs to do the really hard work of looking at what exactly is in this bill.

I am hopeful that I have illustrated just some of the concerns I have with this legislation, and that the committee will take those concerns very seriously and find ways to rein in the power of the minister that is unconstrained now, to define what “incidental” means and to make it clear that the proceeds from seizing things are not going into this fund. Those are my concerns.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑23, An Act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage, be read the second time and referred to a committee.