Bill C-23

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

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as the Bloc Québécois critic on indigenous affairs to shed some light on the bill currently before us, namely Bill C‑23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage.

I will not talk about everything in the bill. It is an update and a reworking of an act from 1985. As the indigenous affairs critic, I would like to draw specific attention to its reference to indigenous peoples. It is in the bill's preamble, in fact. It is one of the biggest changes to the Historic Sites and Monuments Act.

Madam Speaker, I apologize. I forgot to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my invaluable colleague, as my leader would say, the member for Terrebonne. Now back to my speech.

As I was saying, one of the major changes in the bill is the voice given to indigenous peoples. There is a reference to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or TRC, in the bill's preamble.

More specifically, the bill refers to call to action 79, which is quite long. To paraphrase, the idea is to work more and more with first nations so that they feel like they are active participants in everything that has to do with heritage. We are talking about parks and all the historic sites of commemoration or national interest.

There is also a reference to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The preamble is meant to respond to articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the declaration, which should, in theory, be implemented in the next few months. I know that the consultation process is over. This is a first step.

There are structural changes in the bill, for example, on the issue of powers and on the legislative framework for offences. I would like to focus on the issue of structure for the sake of consistency and out of respect. This still relates to what I just mentioned, specifically, the TRC's call to action 79 and articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

That said, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill. The perfect is the enemy of the good, but we can improve it. In any event, that is the purpose of second reading and referring the bill to committee, where changes can be made. Even though we are in favour of the bill, I would like to raise a few points about its structure.

I want to clarify that I will be talking about two major changes. One of them is representation. Previously, the act did not give first nations representatives a seat at the table. Three positions are now being added to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Three new members will sit on the board. That is the first thing. It is in subclause 9(2) of the bill, which reads as follows:

Representatives for First Nations, Inuit and Métis

(2) The representatives appointed under paragraph 8(2)(b) are to be appointed on the recommendation of the Minister made after the Minister has consulted with a variety of Indigenous governing bodies and a variety of entities that represent the interests of Indigenous groups and their members.

That is the first thing. We are seeing some progress. I will come back to it later to suggest improvements that could be made with respect to representation.

Then there is also the issue of tenure of office. The relevant clause reads as follows:

10 (1) A member appointed by the Governor in Council holds office during pleasure for a term fixed by the Governor and Council of up to five years, but they continue to hold office until their successor is appointed.

Reappointment

(2) A member may be reappointed.

As I interpret it, a reappointed member would have no time limit or term limit.

Clearly, the fact that the board will have first nations, Métis and Inuit representatives is in itself an important change. Of course there are places of interest to them that they wish to preserve and that are meaningful for them and the population at large. We must also identify these places, learn about them and recognize their existence and importance.

That said, I worked on Bill C‑29, which provides for the establishment of a council whose purpose is to monitor the progress of reconciliation efforts. I thought that Bill C‑29 went much further than Bill C-23. Obviously, Bill C‑29 also stated that indigenous representatives needed a seat at the table, but first nations, Métis and Inuit communities were guaranteed a seat too. This bill mentions first nations, Métis and Inuit representatives, but the wording of subclause 9(2) does not guarantee that the Inuit, Métis and first nations will be represented. It is a possibility, but there is no indication that everyone will be at the table. That is something I wanted to raise.

There is also the issue of the process. Will all due respect, I find that the process is unclear. Of course, the Governor in Council will be able to take part in the recommendation, but we still do not know which indigenous governing bodies will be consulted. Once again, does this mean that the Métis, Inuit and first nations peoples will all be consulted, or just a few groups chosen at random? The same applies to the question of indigenous interest groups. We have no idea how inclusive this will be. The preamble says that one of the aims of the bill is inclusivity. Yes, there is some opportunity for inclusivity, but there is no guarantee that each of the various indigenous interest groups or governing bodies will be represented.

Then, there is the tenure of office. Individuals will be appointed rather than elected. In my view, the fact that there may be changes and that the deck may be shuffled at some point is a good thing, it could create new energy and at least give the impression of greater representativeness. In this respect, I would like to make a comparison with the clauses of the current version of Bill C-29 regarding nominations. It is not exactly the same thing, but there is a guarantee that a member of the board may be elected only after being nominated by the Assembly of First Nations, by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, therefore the Inuit, by the Métis National Council, and by the Native Women’s Association of Canada.

In Bill C-29, there is an attempt at representativeness, and there is also a guarantee that specific groups will be consulted. Nothing is left to chance. I am not saying that it is perfect, because it is not up to me to say whether indigenous groups feel represented or not. It is up to them to decide. However, here we are at least trying to cast the widest net possible, and we are offering guarantees to all three groups. That is something.

The same applies to the term of office. Bill C-29 allows for a maximum of two terms. After that, there will be changes to the board. I feel that Bill C-23 might be stronger if it was modeled on Bill C-29. This is only a small part of the bill, but I wanted to mention it because of the whole issue of consultation, which is crucial for the first nations. Out of respect for the first nations, and for the sake of inclusivity and transparency, I think that, when it comes to Bill C-23, we would be wise to look at the work done on Bill C-29 to ensure a fair and diverse representation of all three groups of indigenous peoples.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-23 takes into consideration the calls to action on reconciliation. I believe it is number 79 that ensures there is representation from the indigenous community on the board. The member seems to have some concern about whether or not that representation is within the legislation, but my understanding of the legislation is that it is there. It also ensures indigenous consideration in decisions being made by the board.

Would the member not agree that in recognizing that this legislation, in principle, is good and sets the framework, many of the ideas and suggestions she might have as an opposition member could in fact have a positive outcome once the bill gets to the committee stage, where at the very least her questions could be answered more specifically?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, if my colleague had listened to me carefully, he would know that that was the whole point of my 10-minute speech on the bill.

I stated that we were in favour of this bill and also that improvements could be made in committee after this second reading stage. That is exactly what I talked about for 10 minutes.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for sharing her experience regarding these issues.

Is she concerned that the bill gives too much power to the government, cabinet and the minister?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Sarnia—Lambton. It is very easy to work with her because, as we just heard, her questions are very clear and simple.

Obviously, as a democrat, I always hope for as much representation as possible and for power to be shared among as many people as possible. We ourselves are representatives and we speak for others.

Obviously, I am always interested in challenging power, the minister's power, because we want this work to be neutral and objective, not partisan.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a very important bill in that it addresses the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 79. It ensures there is going to be indigenous representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada from first nations, Métis and Inuit.

I just came from Tseshaht First Nation, and they announced findings related to the unmarked graves of children who attended the Alberni Indian Residential School. They made themselves unequivocally clear:

23. Canada, B.C., churches and others fully fund all memorialization projects, including [Alberni Indian Residential School] survivor priority of a memorial with the names of all students who attended [Alberni Indian Residential School] with a gazebo and more (like those seen at war memorials) in Tseshaht territory.

24. Memorial fund for survivors’ headstones. Survivor paraphrased quote: “If Canada can help pay for headstones of war veterans, why can’t they pay for our warriors (survivors) who had to go through the war of the residential schools?”

Does my colleague agree that Canada needs to step forward, go beyond this today and ensure that it funds the calls for truth and justice from the Tseshaht people and other nations that had Indian residential schools placed on their lands without permission? They are now caretakers and have to uphold the healing process that needs to happen.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Of course, the content of the question is not directly related to the bill currently before us.

However, everything can change in a bill. This one is more or less symbolic. Yes, it grants certain powers to the ministers, but it does not really provide the spending powers it refers to.

Like my colleague, I completely agree with the fact that the government needs to fund research and then beyond that, seek the truth and begin reconciliation. This needs to be done and quickly because sites are disappearing. Sites of memory are not necessarily eternal and neither are the people around us who hold these memories. Obviously, it is important to do this, to do this quickly and to consult the first nations and make them stakeholders who decide for themselves.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are seized with Bill C-23, which seeks to advance reconciliation between the Canadian colonial government and indigenous nations. First, I would like to draw the House's attention to a fine example of a model agreement, namely the peace of the braves agreement.

This model nation-to-nation agreement between Quebec and the Cree nation is based on the principle of a people's autonomy. It gives the Cree people the means and resources they need to govern themselves in a true partnership with Quebec. It did not take gnashing of teeth and rending of a prime minister's garments to achieve this, but rather a conviction, inherited from New France, that Quebec's destiny is intertwined with that of its indigenous brethren.

I would like to point out that the Quebec people simply would not exist today if our partnership had not been solid from the outset, when New France first came into being. Without that partnership, we would have been buried under the snow, decimated by scurvy or massacred by our enemies. Kondiaronk, Pontiac and Louis Riel were our allies in victory and in defeat, and the Bloc Québécois will obviously stand alongside their descendants in their quest for recognition and emancipation.

The Bloc Québécois believes that it will always be important to give the indigenous peoples a say in all matters that concern them. Since we support reconciliation and support the indigenous peoples' demands in terms of a nation-to-nation relationship, the Bloc Québécois naturally supports the appointment of representatives for first nations, Inuit and Métis to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.

Bill C‑23 is not bad in and of itself, but it does not do much to make life better for indigenous nations. Let us be frank. This bill is just a drop in the ocean, given the number of policies that will be needed to stamp out the inequality to which the first nations have been subjected for more than 150 years. Despite its promises and fine words, the federal government is ignoring or is simply incapable of providing first nations with basic services, such as clean drinking water and assistance in emergency situations such as floods and forest fires.

Increasing indigenous participation in the designation of historic sites is an important step, but they need the means and resources to protect their historic sites and their heritage. It is all well and good to give indigenous peoples more of a say when it comes to protecting our heritage, but more could be done.

As a good economist, I would always argue that any nation's power and capacity to act is measured by its economic power. The purpose of Bill C‑23 is to increase indigenous participation in the designation of federal historic sites, which is a noble goal, but it would have been even more noble to seek to ensure that these nations have full freedom of choice, which necessarily involves increasing their economic power. It cannot be said enough that indigenous services are underfunded, grossly mismanaged or both. Indigenous people have been economically vulnerable for the past 150 years, which is sad.

I have serious concerns about the protection of built heritage in indigenous communities. It is well known that these communities are unfortunately the first victims of the effects of climate change. I believe that extreme weather events caused by climate change could seriously compromise the preservation of first nations' built heritage and historic sites. Because they are generally in remote locations, they are underserved. Because of serious gaps in the federal government's response plan, extreme weather events are particularly destructive to indigenous communities.

In a recent report that was considered this week by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which also heard from the minister, the Auditor General noted that the federal government's management of extreme weather emergencies is abysmal. The Auditor General's report found that over the past 13 years, first nations communities experienced more than 1,300 emergencies leading to over 580 evacuations affecting more than 130,000 people. Some of these people were evacuated more than once for different emergencies.

Furthermore, we have been aware of the problem for a long time. The Auditor General noted that “[m]any issues have not improved since we first identified them in our 2013 audit of emergency management on reserves”. That was 10 years ago. The source of the problems is a serious lack of prevention funding. The Auditor General found that “funding for structural mitigation projects identified by First Nations did not meet First Nations' needs”.

I think that this lack of investment in infrastructure will inevitably have a negative impact on the conservation of our built heritage and historic sites. For example, the first nation infrastructure fund, which helps first nations build infrastructure such as levees to prevent or mitigate the effects of weather events, is seriously underfunded. The fund has only $12 million a year until 2024 to finance structural mitigation projects, out of an Indigenous Services Canada budget of more than $30 billion. At this rate, it will take more than 24 years to finance the infrastructure needed to protect first nations.

I have submitted clear demands to the Minister of Indigenous Services. To keep first nations territory and its inhabitants safe, we must first conduct a specific, comprehensive assessment of the risks and damage to which these communities are exposed. Then we need a clear, precise timeline for delivering the materials and building the mitigation and adaptation infrastructure as fast as possible.

My fantastic colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, told the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs that the Atikamekw community in Manawan had to pay out of pocket for the equipment needed to fight a major fire, since there was no government prevention plan.

More than 10 years later, the Auditor General made the same observation. The federal government is incapable of doing the slightest bit of prevention or preparation, yet prevention and preparation are the key to protecting our heritage and historic sites. We need to look to the future and consider possible risks to the conservation of our heritage and historic sites. The federal government has shown time and time again that it is flying blind.

If the government is serious about including indigenous nations in the protection of our heritage, then it is a good idea to create positions for them on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Once again, it is a noble goal, one that we support. However, I believe that it is even more important to make sure that these communities have the resources and funding they need to protect their built heritage and their residents from extreme weather events. After all, they are the ones in the best position to protect their heritage.

I sincerely hope that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, on which I sit, will no longer hear public servants and the minister say that the problems persist, that they still exist, while we continue to draft nice bills like the one we are discussing today yet fail to provide for concrete solutions, funding and better management.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, my colleague emphasized the lack of heritage infrastructure.

My question is very simple: Does my colleague agree that these monuments should be included in the bill and be assessed so that we can restore and maintain our infrastructure?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that these monuments should be included.

In fact, I think it is worth mentioning that I am glad that the wording is changing and that they are no longer being referred to as national monuments or national historic sites, since there are many nations within Canada. Now they are Canadian monuments and historic sites.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding, I see a large number of historic sites, many of which I dearly love, as do local residents.

If I run through that list, there is Craigflower Manor House, from 1856; Craigflower Schoolhouse, from 1855; four Esquimalt naval sites; Fort Rodd Hill and Fisgard Lighthouse, the first permanent lighthouse on the west coast of Canada; Hatley Castle; the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory; and the Weir's Beach Earthworks, which commemorates a Spanish landing site. What is particular about the list is that first nations have, of course, lived forever in my riding, and they are not on this list. I hope this bill will, by including first nations representation, get us a better and more representative list of historic sites in my riding. I wonder if the member shares my enthusiasm for these improvements in our list of national historic sites.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I do share his enthusiasm.

I also wanted to mention that I think that improving first nations, Métis and Inuit representation on the board is in fact intended to remedy those significant oversights.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think there are some difficulties with this bill when it comes to waterways. The Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change are all authorized to make decisions.

What is the mechanism for determining who is responsible for waterways?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question, but also for making the effort to ask it in French.

I am certain this is not the first example of a potential lack of coordination within the federal government or a division of responsibility that is not necessarily equal and well established. I think this is a very good point to raise in committee. I know this bill will be considered in committee after second reading, so that would be an interesting aspect to explore.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that it appears the Bloc is supporting at least the principles of the legislation. When we think of the contributions of heritage, and one could ultimately say our arts community makes us who we are as a nation, it is important that we recognize that heritage. We do that with a designation so people can advocate for names, places and events. It is important that we treasure and recognize it. What are the member's general thoughts on that principle?