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

[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?

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

Madam Speaker, I rarely say anything personal in the House. I am married to a historian. Consequently, I would be in no position to say that legacy and cultural and historical heritage are not important.

I think it is essential to remember the past. That way, we can ensure we will not make the same mistakes twice, and we can pass on what our ancestors did. It is extremely important to who we are and to our identity, both as Canadians but above all, on our side, as Quebeckers. Our history is our heritage, and it is extremely important to us.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate on a bill about which we agree on the principle, but where we still have some concerns about the wording and the powers granted directly to cabinet and which may, in our opinion, put our country on an unadvisable tangent. We have, then, the opportunity to delve into this further.

We should remember that Bill C‑23 concerns “places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and national heritage”. Essentially, the main improvement in the bill to how historic sites or monuments are currently designated is the positive response to recommendation number 79 in the inquiry to ensure reconciliation with the first nations.

Since we are talking about history, I want to remind the House about the historic event that occurred on June 11, 2008, when the Prime Minister of Canada made a formal apology to the first nations on behalf of our country regarding the shameful and unspeakable tragedy of the residential schools. It was the Prime Minister of Canada's formal apology on behalf of all Canadians that led the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to produce this report, which was tabled seven or eight years ago, and to make recommendation number 79, which proposes that first nations be given a greater role in defining what constitutes a historic site, monument or event by having them participate in the assessment of these cases.

We agree with the principle of this bill. We also agree with the fact that we need to do a better job of maintaining and promoting our heritage sites. Speaking of heritage sites and first nations, I am proud to remind members that my riding, where I have the great pleasure and privilege of representing the people of Wendake, is home to a wonderful little church. I am not saying that pretentiously. It is absolutely wonderful. The Wendat church, Notre-Dame-de-Lorette, is located on the banks of the Kabir Kouba waterfall. It has been there since 1730 when the first chapel was built. It was designated a heritage building by the Province of Quebec in 1957 and a national historic site in 1981. It is with great pride that I remind members of that.

Even though we agree in principle, we want this to move forward, and we will vote in favour of the bill to have it referred to committee, we do have legitimate concerns. We believe that in some cases there may be excessive powers granted to the executive council. More specifically, if we look closely at the legislation, it says, in clause 34, “The Governor in Council [in other words, cabinet] may make regulations respecting federal historic places”. It lists 18 areas where the government gives itself the discretionary power to take immediate action and intervene in heritage sites. In our opinion, this may raise concerns, especially when the bill also gives the government the power to prohibit navigation in certain sectors, which could have immediate repercussions on commercial activities and transportation activities, certainly, but also tourist activities. We need to take into account that this power may unfortunately be used for what we consider to be the wrong purposes.

The same could be said when it comes to broadening the impact this could have on both the designated site as well as the area surrounding an historic site. How can we objectively and neutrally define the surrounding area where the government would have to right to directly intervene to put an end to a given activity? That is a bit of an overreach.

That is why we have these concerns that we are going to raise in the clause-by-clause study in parliamentary committee. We are going to hear from the experts and hear what people have to say about it. Essentially, that is where our concerns lie, especially since this could also have a direct impact on developing our mining potential, our natural resources.

I want to remind members that, in that regard, the member for Carleton and leader of the official opposition made a promise to all of Canada's first nations six weeks ago in Vancouver. We essentially want to engage with first nations to ensure they are partners in the prosperity resulting from development projects. Whether it is natural resources, mining potential or other elements that could be promoted by first nations, we want them to be partners in our country's prosperity. Gone are the days when someone could step in and decide to develop a piece of land or work directly on it in order to extract its mineral or hydrocarbon potential. We want this to be done in partnership with first nations. That is the promise that our leader made in that regard.

Those are our concerns. We know that there are more than 1,000 historic sites in Canada, with 171 under the jurisdiction of Parks Canada. They are mainly rural or urban places, sacred spaces, archaeological sites or battlefields. There is, to say the least, a very well known battlefield in Quebec. There are also historic homes, places where discoveries were made and places of scientific discovery.

I have been thinking about this. I am not a historian, but I studied history and would have liked to be a history teacher. However, when I entered the job market, they told me to come back in 20 years, since they would not be hiring until then because of job security. I did something else: I became a journalist, and now I am a member of Parliament. I am happy with how it all turned out. That being said, when it comes to history, we need to know how to recognize where the event occurred and the impact it had.

Earlier this morning, the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin mentioned that I visited Leduc No. 1, the site where, on February 13, 1947, oil was discovered, which would give rise to the oil boom that has benefited all Canadians for more than 70 years. The hon. member suggested that Leduc No. 1 might become a national site, and I agree with him. Some may reproach me for being from Quebec and talking about Alberta and oil. Yes, and they would have a point. Three weeks ago, an HEC study revealed that Quebec consumed 18 billion litres of oil last year, and that 47% of that oil came from the United States. As long as we are an oil producing country, I would rather support Canada than send billions of dollars to Texas and Louisiana, although I have nothing against those states.

Yes, I think we should consider the possibility of honouring Leduc No. 1, since it is an important historic site where a major event took place. Similarly, in 1990, the Canadian government recognized that the Beauharnois hydroelectric plant was a national historic site. The plant was recognized by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. That was the right thing to do, since we know that Beauharnois was the first hydroelectric plant built under Hydro-Québec to be expanded from 1948 to 1953 and that it virtually launched Hydro-Québec, a new Crown corporation at the time.

Let us keep in mind that Hydro-Québec was created in 1944 as a result of the nationalization of Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated and others. Along with Montreal Light, Heat and Power, there was the Beauharnois power plant, not far from Montreal, and, under the authority of Hydro-Québec, for the first time, there was increased potential. Beauharnois was therefore Hydro-Québec’s first major project in the years between 1940 and 1950. It is not true that Hydro-Québec was created in 1960. The project ended in 1948-1949. We could even consider recognizing other heritage areas of this type.

I think that my time is up now. I will be pleased and more than happy to take questions from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, as members may know, Bill C-23 would enable and encourage recommendations and ideas people might have. The member made reference to a few very specific thoughts.

When we think of our heritage, we need to think of people, places and special events, or a combination of any of those three areas, and advance it to where criteria and eligibility need to be met. What is nice about the legislation is that it sets a more detailed framework that would allow this to take place. Would the member not agree, in the principles of the legislation, that this is good legislation that should ultimately go to the committee?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to repeat what I said earlier at the beginning of my speech. We do agree with the principle of the bill because it would open the door to the first nations, which is recommendation number 79 of the Crown commission that we had to address the issues of reconciliation with the first nations. Everything started when the Right Hon. Stephen Harper tabled official apologies to first nations here in the House of Commons on June 11, 2008, which was among the most important statements made by any prime minister in history to please and to reconcile with first nations, with the authority of the government.

Yes, we do agree with the principle. We have concerns with too much power being put in the hands of cabinet ministers.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would just like him to confirm that he did say he would like Leduc No. 1 to become a Canadian historic site.

If so, would he agree that this is not the right time for that, since we are turning towards renewable energies instead? It seems to me that this historic site designation would be rather inappropriate.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have no authority to make any declarations other than to say that, yes, it would be a good idea. Since February 13, 1947, Alberta and other neighbouring provinces such as Saskatchewan have contributed substantially to the creation of wealth in this country, to say the least. Over $500 billion has been paid out in equalization to all provinces in Canada.

Need I remind my hon. colleague that we are facing major challenges today with respect to the environment? My colleague cherishes the province of Quebec, as do I. Need I also remind him that, in Quebec alone, we consumed 18 billion litres of oil last year? That is the reality. Surely he does not need me to remind him that the best-selling vehicle in Quebec is the Ford F-150. That is not what I drive. I do not like it.

The reality is that 47% of the oil we consume comes from the United States. As far as I know and since I checked just this morning, neither the state of Texas nor the state of Louisiana is currently contributing to equalization. That may have changed in the last few hours. If I am wrong, my colleague can stand up and say so.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the last time I heard my colleague speak to this subject, he exclaimed how interested he was in history, and that really came through here.

There are historic sites in my riding. There is the Rossland Miners' Hall; the Rossland Court House; the Nikkei Internment Memorial Centre in New Denver, which talks about the Japanese internment during the Second World War; and the Doukhobor Suspension Bridge, a remarkable bridge built over a hundred years ago over the Kootenay River near Castlegar. However, as we know, none of these speak to that first nations indigenous history of Canada, which is so important. The good thing about the bill before us is that it would more than encourage that. It would make it possible.

I am just wondering if the member could comment further on letting first nations and indigenous peoples take the reins.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is why we support recommendation number 79 from the Crown corporation's report on reconciliation with first nations, which was created by our former government. Yes, we do agree with that.

I am very proud to raise that in my own riding I have a historic site, the parish of Notre-Dame-de-Lorette in Wendake, which is part of my riding. I welcome any other historic sites for reconciliation and recognizing that first nations are very important in our history.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House of Commons today to discuss Bill C-23. Today and every day, I am pleased to represent the interests of the citizens of Calgary Centre.

One of the purposes of this bill is to create a Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Among other things, this bill gives the minister the authority to recognize the national historic significance or national interest of sites. It also gives the minister regulatory powers, and that is where we have a problem. The Governor in Council can make regulations respecting historic sites administered by the Agency.

This is where we might differ a little.

There are many other regulatory powers to be concerned about.

One of the main parts of this bill, which we strongly support, of course, is the call to action 79 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I will read that into the record here very quickly, if I may:

We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Survivors, Aboriginal organizations, and the arts community, to develop a reconciliation framework for Canadian heritage and commemoration. This would include, but not be limited to:

i. Amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to include First Nations, Inuit, and Métis representation on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and its Secretariat.

That is the most important part of this one, and that is also what is in the bill that we need to support strongly. This is something that has gone on for too long in Canada, where we are not including the most important part of our history, pre-colonialization, in the decisions in the historic sites across Canada.

I do not know how that happened. I have been exploring, in my riding and across Canada, where the division happened in what was a real consensus between the colonialists who came to Canada and the first nations who were here before they came to Canada. They used to work very much hand in hand together. Somewhere in our history, that compact seemed to get broken, and we seemed to be separate entities. We are only coming past that dark part of our history in these years, as we deal with things in the House of Commons.

This call to action, of course, is part of that reconciliation. It is an important part of this bill that we need to make sure we instill in law here in Canada and in the laws going forward.

There are other things in this bill that are huge regulatory oversteps. The minister, the Minister of the Environment in this case, would have the sole authority to designate a historic site. That might sound innocuous to my colleagues. It is not so innocuous when we look at everything that has been given to this minister, and everything that has been given to this minister that he has made gross oversteps on.

I could give a few examples here. The first thing I am going to talk about is the Impact Assessment Act. The thing about the Impact Assessment Act, passed in August 2019, is that it allowed the minister, not Governor in Council, the cabinet, but this minister alone, the Minister of the Environment, to actually say, “yes, I get to approve a resource development by myself in any part of Canada, or I get to disapprove of such a resource development”, which is contrary to the Canadian Constitution.

The Canadian Constitution allows resource development in the provinces to be the purview of the provinces. It is only when it crosses provincial boundaries that the federal government or, in this case, the federal Minister of Environment might get involved.

This was an overstep, and it was recognized by the Alberta Court of Appeal in May 2022, when they overturned, by a good margin of four to one, the actual constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act.

What was lost to Canada in those almost three years, between the passage of the bill and the overturning of the bill, ruling it unconstitutional, in the Alberta Court of Appeal, were three years of project developments in Canada's natural resource industry.

That is a whole bunch of uncertainty and hundreds of billions of dollars of projects, literally hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of taxation revenue to this government to pay for things like health care and education. We will note the deficits that the government has plunged itself into as a result of not having enough revenue to pay for the programming that it is so fond of signing cheques for. This is a problem.

The Impact Assessment Act is in limbo right now, until it goes to the Supreme Court of Canada, after being overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal. People need to recognize that the Alberta Court of Appeal is five justices, all appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada. This is not an Alberta versus federal decision. These are actually people who are appointed by the federal government who have overturned a piece of federal legislation soundly.

I think anybody who is a constitutionalist around here could look at that and say, “If the constitutional authority rests with the provinces, why does the federal Minister of the Environment, by himself, get the authority to turn this over and say no, the provinces cannot do this?” It defies constitutional law, and I am going to be wondering what happens when the Supreme Court of Canada hears this. Is it going to acquiesce, or is it going to agree with everybody else in Canada who says yes? This has been a gross overstep and it needs to end.

The second thing I am going to talk about is something that happened this past summer. In June 2022, the Minister of the Environment thrust some new regulations on the migratory birds regulations. The regulations actually say that if people discover a pileated woodpecker nest anywhere near a construction site, they cannot construct anything for three years. Regulations do not come to the House. We know that. They actually go through the Hansard process.

All of a sudden that became a regulation that impeded the progress of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which had been under construction for a number of years at that time, and it is still under construction. There is a reason it is grossly over budget. The Minister of the Environment keeps putting roadblocks in the way to getting it completed. As a matter of fact, he stated he does not want to ever see this pipeline created.

This is in stark contrast to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the entity that actually builds the pipeline, who says we need to build this pipeline. We have a conflict here at cabinet. There is the Governor in Council, and now there is one minister able to make this decision about many of these regulations that are going forward. This is a problem in our governance.

It is a serious problem. We have already been exposed to what it means: $30 billion. It is $22 billion over budget for a major Crown project. That is obscene. That is something Canadian taxpayers are paying for. It is dissonance on the front bench of the Liberal government. The Liberals need to get their act together. This is something that we need to make sure we do not replicate in this legislation going forward. It is a gross overstep.

I should add one more thing about the TMX pipeline. It is over budget. The benefit of the TMX pipeline, at the end of the day, is that we are actually going to receive about $22 billion a year in national benefit as a result of the building of this pipeline. In as much as the project itself is not going to pay the proponent the amount of money that has gone into it, and we need to acknowledge that, it is a huge benefit for this country on a yearly basis going forward. It is $22 billion in revenue per year going forward, and we are way behind on getting it built.

I will also talk about budget 2019, where the Minister of the Environment could not get things one way, so he got things another way when he actually—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have a point of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have been very patient in listening to the member. He is talking about everything but Bill C-23. He is talking about oil development.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

There is a lot of latitude in what is permissible in speeches. The hon. member has made mention of the bill in question.

The hon. member has one minute and 15 seconds.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from my learned colleague, as always.

Budget 2019 was another example of the Minister of the Environment overstepping, as we are seeing the authority being given in this bill, when they actually unilaterally withdrew lands that were designed for ski resorts in the Rocky Mountains without even discussing with the proponents of that. What is the problem here? There are all kinds of things. This is about waterways regulation that is going to be unilateral. This is about development of lands. It is going to be unilateral approval or disapproval by one minister.

We have already heard from my speech, which was very relevant, how this negatively affects our country. We need to make sure that we address and that parts of this do not go forward as written. We need to make sure that we have the full authority of the government and that it has proper authority in order to make this happen. The minister may want all this authority, but it is not up to the House of Commons to give him alone that authority.

I look forward to my colleagues' questions.