Evidence of meeting #72 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was places.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Are my thoughts far-fetched?
Mr. Rivet wanted to answer my question, but I first want to hear from Ms. Cameron.
10:35 a.m.
Christina Cameron
No, go ahead.
10:35 a.m.
President, ICOMOS Canada
Mr. Godin, I certainly wouldn't be so bold as to tell you whether your thoughts are far-fetched. However, I want to support the point made by Ms. Cameron.
It depends on the jurisdictions. In Quebec, for example, the provincial government has excellent legislation to protect landscapes. It's something quite unique across the country. Other provincial governments invest in certain types of heritage that are, for example, more closely related to indigenous peoples, or they invest more in buildings.
If we're thinking about a federal funding allocation, we must also consider the idea of leverage. We must look at how to support a conservation method that will achieve the objectives of all the communities across the country, according to their type of heritage, as effectively as possible and in cooperation with the other provincial, territorial and municipal governments.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I think we heard a lot of great suggestions today, and I really want to thank you as a panel.
Very quickly, if you had to pick one short-term thing that you would like to see happen, and then one thing longer term, what would the two priorities be off the great list you have given us?
I'll start with Andrew.
10:35 a.m.
National Heritage Conservation Manager, Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions, As an Individual
In the short term, they would be the things that you can do in terms of the Treasury Board policy. You could revisit it easily within policies driven internally by government, and you can revisit some of the ideas there. Strengthen them. Refine them. They haven't been touched by committee for years. They tried a few years ago, but they should do that.
The long-term vision I think has to do with the legislation. It's not legislation in terms of fixating on funding dollars; it's in terms of what Christophe said about leveraging. It's the impetus for transforming our country. That's where it would start. Then you would have all of these ancillary impacts greater than anything, and this has already been the experience in the United States.
Those would be my short-term and long-term suggestions.
10:35 a.m.
As an Individual
I worked for 35 years for Parks Canada. I spent some time working closely with colleagues in national parks. The one thing that always astonished me was the importance of the Canada National Parks Act, and I say that admiringly. In other words, that very strong piece of legislation, even before the introduction of ecological integrity, drove the program. It made most people think that Parks Canada is national parks. There probably have been a few ministers and others who have felt the same way.
I think the legislation, as Andrew said, is really important in order to introduce that change. A former senior official of Parks Canada is reported to have once said that national parks had strong legislation and a great system plan, and national marine conservation areas had strong legislation and a great system plan, but national historic sites really had no legislation and half a system plan.
It really counts having that legislation. It counts inside and outside because most people in Canada are very happy knowing that the Canada National Parks Act is there protecting those important places. We need the same thing on the historic side.
10:35 a.m.
Professor and Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Very quickly, I think a short-term win would be to introduce the concept of indigenous registrars for the Canadian Register of Historic Places. That would be because we didn't get far in the consultation with indigenous peoples. One, we didn't know how to do it, and two, the concept of heritage has evolved so much that it's absolutely essential that it be self-identified, and this would be a great enrichment of the registry.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
That's it. I'm so sorry, but maybe our side will pick it up. We'll see.
Go ahead, Mr. Aldag.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I'm looking for a quick summary. This is in the spirit of helping us re-create or understand the legislation that Christina and Gordon worked on in the early 2000s.
There was one act that covered the report “Federal House in Order” and the federal leadership piece. With a minute or two, could you walk us through really quickly—just bullets—how those two separated out?
If we run out of time, you could send something to us that would help guide us in at least recommending how to structure this based on the work that was previously done. I know a lot of thought went into it.
10:40 a.m.
As an Individual
There was one act in the proposed bill dealing exclusively with national historic sites. The other proposed act in that bill was the historic places of canada act, and it dealt with the other matters, including the register of the standards and guidelines, federal heritage buildings, archeological resources on federal lands, including lands under water, and world heritage sites.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Was there a funding piece under both of those? As I say, it was one title but two almost distinct acts within that, and the funding would have flowed....
September 21st, 2017 / 10:40 a.m.
Professor and Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
There was a lot of work done on funding, a lot of modelling done on how tax credits could work, and so on. I don't remember all the numbers. There certainly was a lot of work done, and it would have been assigned to the two acts separately because they were different.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
That statutory authority to spend is really critical. We need to make sure we get that right, as well as how to support this.
I think that's good.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Do you think you have finished?
We want to thank all of you very much. It's obviously been a great session. Lots of questions were asked. We've received good answers, but I think there is obviously lots more we want to know. If you have something to share with us that you weren't able to say today, or even if you have details that you want to clarify with us on what you did say, we would very much welcome that. I know our analysts have sometimes said they'd like to maybe send a question or two, if you'd be ready for that. It's a shortish study, so if you get the questions, we'd really like to have a fast turnaround response if possible.
Thank you again.
The meeting is adjourned.