Environment Committee on Sept. 19th, 2017

[Joëlle Montminy]

There may be a couple of nuances. Parks Canada is responsible for the conservation and maintenance of the national historic sites that it owns and administers. Other federal departments also own and administer their sites, so they are responsible for the preservation and maintenance of those as well.

When they are federal buildings on national historic sites, there is, under Treasury Board policy and through FHBRO, guidance that's provided for all federal departments on how to maintain their federal heritage buildings.

With respect to your question, I don't know exactly if it's a Parks Canada site in your riding.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

No.

[Joëlle Montminy]

Then it is up to the department that owns that particular site to decide on its own investment in and maintenance of that site.

At Parks Canada, we have reporting mechanisms. We have ongoing assessment of our sites, including the assessment of the state of cultural resources in those sites, and we report that regularly. We have those tools. Other departments may not have exactly the same ones, the full suite of ongoing assessment, monitoring, and reporting tools that we have.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Aldag.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

That's a really good point.

I've read through the Auditor General's reports. I think they mention that many of the other custodian departments don't have that the way Parks Canada does, so there's no public reporting on the state of these sites, and even FHBRO buildings that other departments.... That may be something we need to look at in recommendations.

Natalie, I wanted to get your thoughts. You talked about the “do no harm” policy as something the federal government can do. I don't think you mentioned the “heritage first” policy, and I've heard that's something in the States. Could you comment on that as another thing we could explore?

[Natalie Bull]

Right. I think I did mention heritage first policies as part of my proposal—

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Did you? I missed that, then.

In the monetary-type things or policy, those are great ones and I know we've spoken about that. That's great. I missed that specific reference.

Just for clarification on the cost-share program, when I was involved in the program, national historic sites with for-profit ownership—so, for example, a hotel—did not qualify for the funding. I think the program applies only to things that are not-for-profit and federally or provincially owned and perhaps indigenous-owned. There are other categories of classification and ownership that would not qualify. I don't know if everybody understood that. Even though you have the designation, it doesn't mean that other programs exist.

I want to jump to indigenous designations. I'm working on another project. I've been looking at the Truth and Reconciliation report, and recommendation 79 relates to indigenous designations. It's sort of curious that for the national historic sites program we heard that there was a systems plan, not for acquisition but for designation. As Martin mentioned, a few years ago, priority was put on indigenous women's history and ethnocultural communities. Is there any update now? What's the current focus?

I realize it's a very grassroots-driven program, but recommendation 79 actually talks about, “a national heritage plan and strategy for commemorating residential school sites, the history and legacy of residential schools, and the contributions of Aboriginal peoples to Canada's history.” Is that working its way into Parks Canada's leadership in trying to get these designations and nominations before the board?

[Joëlle Montminy]

Briefly, yes, we have started engaging with the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, for instance, specifically on call to action 79(iii), the aspects of commemorating the legacy of residential schools. We're looking at how we're going to be implementing that. There's also, as you know, under 79, the appointment of members to the board—indigenous members, Métis, first nations, and Inuit. We're working on that, and that will be done in consultation with indigenous groups. There's also the other section of 79, in relation to reviewing our policies, protocols, and practices to make sure we are inclusive of indigenous perspectives and voices in the work of the board. If we had more time, I'm sure Dr. Alway could comment as well.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Before the Chair cuts me off, I want to say—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm definitely cutting you off.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

—that one of the few national historical sites that have been added to Parks Canada in the last decade or so is Saoyú-?ehdacho, which is an indigenous national historic site. Things do happen, and there are—

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

John.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

—some opportunities on an indigenous front.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I know this is—

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I didn't see the red card.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Oh, it was up. It was up.

We might actually have time for another small round if we want, so let's just stick to the schedule.

Mr. Stetski, go ahead, please.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I can't see the red card either.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you, John, for asking that question around truth and reconciliation. It was on my list as well. I'll move on to another one.

Historic buildings and sites add value to our communities. They make them more interesting places to live. They give us a sense of local pride, and they're also important for tourism and the economy. There are 970 national historic sites across the country, 171 administered by Parks Canada. In the village of Kaslo, in my riding, we have two national historic sites, the S.S. Moyie, which is a paddlewheeler on the lake, and then Kaslo City Hall.

The Kootenay Lake Historical Society was disconcerted to find this summer that neither of them show up on lists of national historic sites published by Parks Canada, particularly because they want to get maximum exposure for these values. What can we do to ensure that the federal government is better promoting all historic sites to Canadians, and not just the 171 that are currently on your list?

[Genevieve Charrois]

We will double-check the status of your national historic sites, because they should be on the registry of heritage places and the national historic sites designation list. I was going to say that to be on the list you need to also be capable of showing the location of the site, but in your case it's not that, so we'll check, because I'm pretty sure that in Kaslo we have national historic sites.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

One of them is an old paddlewheeler, an old boat, so....

[Richard Alway]

That may not be classified as a site, in fact. It's part of the program, but we'd have to look it up. It may have actually gone through as an event. In other words, it represented a form of transportation, etc., which was important in opening up this area economically but a moveable resource like that wouldn't be a site.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

In a 2015 op-ed piece in the Ottawa Citizen you wrote that, “Canadians have lost more than 20 per cent of their heritage places in the last 30 years, with more bulldozed every day. Most of our National Historic Sites...are in poor to fair condition due to chronic underfunding.” Has anything changed since you wrote that?

[Natalie Bull]

I think we're still losing historic places every day. The national historic sites managed by Parks Canada have received an influx of funding. The cost-share funding has been increased to $20 million over two years. We're coming to the end of that amount. In some ways, there is still a huge need to identify stable and predictable funding for national historic sites that are privately owned, not owned by government, but also for many more historic places that are out there.

We know that there are huge gaps in the incentives that municipal and provincial governments are able to cobble together to attract investment in important historic places. We know, from looking south of the border, that the American system, with a federal rehabilitation tax incentive, is able to stack those incentives together and make a much more game-changing incentive available to heritage projects.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

You suggest better collaboration.