Debates of March 9th, 2017

Opposition Motion--Canadian Forces Tax Benefit

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would say this in the House, but I agree with the parliamentary secretary 100% about the importance of that.

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with him because, for once, he said the right thing. That hardly ever happens in the House, but I have to acknowledge that it did just now. What I would like to see is the government act accordingly.

Can my hon. colleague tell that to the hon. Minister of National Defence and ask him to take action now, tomorrow, to give soldiers the compensation they are entitled to?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, I would let him know there are only about two and a half minutes remaining in the time provided under the business of supply this afternoon, but we will get him started just the same.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to this issue.

The compensation of our men and women in the military is of course one that we take as a cherished responsibility and an honour to live up to. We have created systems and processes to properly compensate those men and women who find themselves on combat missions, who find themselves in harm's way on peace missions, wherever they are deployed to make sure that their families are taken care of, that the reward for their sacrifice to this country is properly acknowledged.

There are systems in place to measure and to distribute this income to these families and to deliver the salaries and from time to time they need to be modernized and revised, especially in a world where conditions can change on what looks like a rescue mission that suddenly can become a civil war that suddenly becomes something even more catastrophic than that.

We have to redesign and rethink sometimes the policies that provide compensation to members of our armed forces. This is clearly the situation we find ourselves in now. This policy has existed since 2003. It is largely administered and assessed by an ongoing process inside the Canadian Armed Forces. When we discovered what had happened, we took steps to rectify the situation and made a commitment to the House and we will follow through on that commitment because we have the responsibility to do that not just as a government, but as parliamentarians.

We have challenges and those challenges need to escape the prism of partisan politics sometimes, although we have our fun across the floor, and we need to understand that this commitment to families is a sacred one, just as our commitment to veterans is a sacred one. We can all up our game on this and provide much more certainty, much more clarity, and much more fairness in the way in which these benefits are assessed and assigned and delivered. That is the commitment that this government has made. We can see it across all of government when it comes to veterans, whether it is dealing with homelessness, whether it is dealing with Veterans Affairs and survivor benefits, whether it is the motion that was passed unanimously in the House around PTSD. We made a commitment and this government will honour that commitment because this government takes that commitment seriously.

While there has been back and forth today, I think I can speak for all members of the House when I say that we can do better, we will do better, and we will do it together as a Parliament in this year.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m. pursuant to an order made earlier today all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, March 21, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am unfortunately not the member for Calgary Forest Lawn but I will nonetheless try my hand at time travel. I think if you seek it you will find unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as 5:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it the pleasure of the House to see the clock at 5:30 p.m?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from February 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-323 be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Income Tax Act

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having seconded Bill C-323 introduced by the member for York—Simcoe, I am delighted to speak to the very meaningful benefits this legislation would bring not only to the owners who preserve and restore heritage properties of all sorts, but to the communities where they are located, as well as to our national cultural heritage.

I represent a riding which has a magnificent respect for the original townsite of old Thornhill, applying its own regulations and encouragement of preservation and restoration under the Ontario Heritage Act. The City of Markham's heritage department offers short-term loans to owners wishing to embark on a restoration adventure, and upon an owner's commitment to conserve the heritage features of a designated property, the City of Markham will actually reduce annual property and education taxes by fully 30%. As well, since 2000, Markham has presented annual heritage awards to owners who have completed restoration projects in compliance with heritage standards.

I am pleased to share with members the pride that Cilla and I share, having survived the roller-coaster perturbation involved in the restoration of 111 John Street, in Thornhill.

The central part of the designated house, built in 1842 by a miller named John Lane, first served to house the coopers who constructed the wooden barrels to carry cornmeal and flour back to England. It was effectively a bunkhouse. The house did have a late Victorian expansion, but its 19th century charm survived even the dilapidated, fixer-upper state in which we found it and acquired it in 2007.

To make a long story short, our marriage survived the top-to-bottom three-year restoration of the house, and we were honoured to receive a Heritage Markham Award of Excellence for our restoration project. Just to clear the air and to assure this House that I support Bill C-323 for its high-minded goals of celebrating restoration and maintenance of Canada's heritage buildings far beyond old Thornhill, indeed right across Canada, and not for personal gain from the very reasonable benefits that this law would provide, let me inform members that because a heritage property demands constant loving care and repair that many homeowners today might find challenging, Cilla and I, unfortunately, no longer own this home.

When I had a close call with mortality a couple of years ago, I received stern spousal direction that I was no longer to venture up onto the roof to carry out maintenance and fixes or to wield my trusty chainsaw as an occasionally necessary high-level amateur arborist. So, reluctantly, we sold to, we hope, we believe, a family as enchanted with this heritage property as we were.

Let me thank members for indulging this explanation of my fixation with historic properties, modest and grand, and let me return to the very important specifics of Bill C-323.

My colleague, the member for York—Simcoe, in his introduction of this private member's legislation, reminded the House of the very real public interest in the preservation and restoration of heritage properties. He spoke directly to the cost burden that rehabilitation is usually more expensive than alternatives such as demolition and a replacement new build, but certainly it is far less expensive than the priceless loss of physical Canadian heritage in a tear-down.

He pointed out that the bill would help owners who are preserving historic places with a modest portion of the cost of delivering this important public benefit. This bill would create a 20% tax credit for rehabilitation of recognized, designated historic places. The bill would also create an accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible capitalized costs incurred under the same conditions as the tax credit.

What exactly are eligible costs? Under the provisions of Bill C-323, these are costs that would include construction, insurance, development, site improvement, as well as basic professional fees. These eligible costs would exclude acquisition, cosmetic and furnishing costs of such a structure.

Our sponsor, the member for York—Simcoe, reminded us that not so many years ago, the government implemented a pilot program with a tax credit and end goal such as the one this bill would create. He cited the fact that the response doubled, on average, the property values of the respective structures and that the tax credit actually incentivized significant GST and corporate tax revenues.

Many countries in different parts of the world have heritage grants and associated programs. The most similar policy, I believe, is the tax credit program in the United States, which provides a 20% tax credit on costs related to the rehabilitation of designated historic buildings, as well as a 10% credit on non-designated buildings built before 1936. The program in the United States was implemented in 1976. It is widely recognized as having been exceptionally successful with over 41,000 projects certified. As well, the program has been found to have a net positive impact on the United States Treasury of $5 billion over the life of the program to date.

Under Bill C-323, eligibility for the tax credit and accelerated write-off of any restoration project would have to be first certified by an architect, following Parks Canada's easily available published standards for conservation of historic places.

The integrity of this evaluation process is ensured through the use of criteria that are not only recognized across Canada, but internationally. There are many programs in different parts of the world which have adopted the Parks Canada criteria for their work in designating and recognizing historic buildings.

Although this process is very exacting, it need not be burdensome or costly and can, we believe, be very easily applied to the detail and the coverage provisions of Bill C-323. The Parks Canada historic sites record with regard to major structures and locations, I am sure hon. members recognize this, is world-class. Application of the Parks Canada historic sites standards to fulfill the provisions of Bill C-323 would be scalable, and again, as I said, not burdensome or costly.

In closing, I would echo the words of my colleague from York—Simcoe in saying that Canadians will be much more likely to embrace the idea of having their heritage properties designated as historic if the bill is passed by the House. While the design of the legislative package is very modest in dollar terms, it would represent a very meaningful investment in our national cultural infrastructure.

I encourage all members of the House, all parties in the House, to stand in support of Bill C-323.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in this House on behalf of my constituents of Kingston and the Islands to speak in support of Bill C-323, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. I will begin by thanking my colleague for York—Simcoe for putting forward this substantive and very timely legislation.

My speech today will focus on three themes. First, I will address the importance of preserving heritage buildings. Second, I will draw from my experiences as a municipal politician to explain why I believe there is a desperate need for financial incentives to encourage heritage restoration. Third, I will speak to the economic benefits associated with the restoration of historically designated buildings.

In his opening remarks during the first hour of debate, the sponsor of the bill talked about the sense of awe he feels when walking through historic sites. While we may come from different parts of the province and indeed different sides of this House, I can say that I share his sense of awe when I visit one of the many historic properties in my riding of Kingston and the Islands.

These buildings tell a story about who we are and where we came from. They impart important lessons from the past and remind us about the challenges we have overcome and the accomplishments we have had in this country. In short, they highlight and bring to life those special moments in our history that are worth remembering.

I have often said in this House that I am proud to represent Canada's first capital, which has firmly etched its place in our country's history. Kingston's rich history and culture endures and is kept alive by our treasured heritage properties. To give members some perspective, about 120 buildings in Kingston belong on the national register of historic places, and more than 1,000 are listed on the city's municipal register and designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. These include nationally important historic sites, such as the Kingston Penitentiary, the original CN station, and the Nine Mile Point lighthouse on Simcoe Island.

This brings me to the second focal point of my speech, which is the need for real incentives to restore and maintain heritage properties.

Growing up in Kingston, I was fortunate to learn from a young age to appreciate the historic value of built heritage. It was later on as mayor that I gained a deeper understanding of the challenges associated with owning or acquiring a heritage building. The reality is that many of our most prominent historical buildings are facing an uncertain future, and I would like to talk about a few examples to illustrate what I mean.

The outer station in Kingston is a designated historical site that was built by the Grand Trunk Railway in 1856, 11 years before Confederation, to serve as a halfway point between Montreal and Toronto. It holds a special role in our history and was used by Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, in his travels between Kingston and this place during the early formative years of our country. Among other notable individuals, King George VI famously arrived there on a visit to Kingston in 1939. The station was closed in 1974, and despite its historical importance, it now sits derelict and in ruins. This is what is known as demolition by neglect, a reality that, unfortunately, is far too common. After years of deterioration, the city has estimated that it would cost nearly $4 million for CN, the current owners, to repair this building and clean up the contamination of the land.

Another perfect example of a challenging situation in my riding is that of the Nine Mile Point lighthouse, which was erected on the western tip of Simcoe Island in 1833 to guide vessels navigating the northeastern waters of Lake Ontario. As the oldest lighthouse on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes, and possibly in the entire Great Lakes, it is now retired from its operational duties and has appropriately been nominated for designation under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. The problem is that any potential new owner of this historic lighthouse might be responsible for the significant cost of maintaining this property and remediating it appropriately, as required by federal and provincial laws.

Restoration in both cases has definite community support, but the projects present a significant undertaking, and I am concerned that right now we do not have adequate incentives to encourage anyone to take them on.

Bill C-323 proposes a modest 20% tax credit for rehabilitation work done on designated historic buildings and a three-year accelerated write-off period for spending on these buildings. This would give interested parties the incentive to take on these projects.

These measures would increase the confidence of current and future owners of historic properties, encouraging them to rehabilitate and reuse historically significant buildings and avoid the grim alternatives of demolition or demolition by neglect.

This incentive is also a win-win in situations where the federal government is trying to divest of a building that no longer has an operational use. Nine Mile Point Lighthouse, Kingston Penitentiary, and Outer Station are all examples of federally owned properties, or those owned by a crown corporation, that are considered surplus and are no longer operational. While the federal government will not outright demolish these historic properties, it is also not required to do anything to preserve them.

The options are to let them remain as a liability on the federal government's balance sheet, in which case they will slowly deteriorate over time because the federal government is not required to repair them, as a third party would, or find a way to transfer them to an interested party who will actually invest in rehabilitation.

The tax credit proposed in Bill C-323 would make the second option more feasible. It would make it less likely that federal properties will be demolished by neglect, which is exactly what has happened in the case of the Outer Station in my riding.

When we talk about heritage properties, we often think about a few particularly special landmarks. I have just named a few that stand out in my community, and I am sure every member could do the same for their own ridings. However, we have to remember that built heritage also includes homes owned by private landowners, who face high costs to maintain their properties over time. As the member for Kootenay—Columbia noted in his speech during the last hour of debate, owners of historic buildings typically incur an additional 21% in costs, so it seems fair and appropriate to offset those costs with a 20% tax credit .

I will now move to my third and final theme, which is the economic benefit of the tax credit. To estimate the financial impact of this bill, we can look to the United States, which has had a historic tax credit program since 1981. The program has been a resounding success at stimulating economic growth and creating jobs.

So far, over $23 billion in federal credits have generated more than $28 billion in additional tax revenue and leveraged over $120 billion in private investment; 2.4 million jobs have been created, and tens of thousands of historic properties have benefited.

In Canada, a pilot program was launched in 2003 that yielded equally promising results. Over the five-year pilot project, $21.5 million in federal contributions supported 49 projects and leveraged $177 million or more than eight times more in private sector investment.

We should make policies based on the best evidence, and in this case, the evidence is very clear. lncentivizing heritage rehabilitation not only serves an important public goal but also stimulates exactly the kind of economic activity we need right now. It will generate considerable private investment and will create well-paying jobs in construction, skilled trades, and many other fields.

In light of Canada's 150th birthday, I cannot imagine a more appropriate time to be having this discussion. The experience of visiting a historic site can teach us much more about our past than reading a textbook, and we should not deprive future generations of this opportunity. If we do nothing, we risk losing these national treasures to demolition or demolition by neglect, which unfortunately is happening right now in my community.

We need to positively reward the goodwill of Canadians who are acting in the public interest by preserving our built heritage. To ensure our heritage buildings can be enjoyed by current and future generations, we need to get serious about rehabilitation, and we must act now before it becomes too costly or impossible to do so. My colleague has put forward this bill to do exactly that, which I am proud to support.

To conclude, I hope all members will think hard about the significant cultural and economic benefits that this bill could have to their communities and throughout the country.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-323.

I was here when the sponsor introduced the bill. I really liked his speech during the first hour of debate because I have seen and visited most of the buildings he mentioned. Needless to say, his speech made me feel quite nostalgic. I thank the member for York—Simcoe for this bill, and I want to start off by pledging him my support.

Historic buildings in the riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are a valuable part of our heritage, our history, and our culture. I am in favour of maintaining our historic buildings, but the cost of repairing and maintaining are at times prohibitive, especially in my riding's northernmost communities.

For example, Village-Minier-de-Bourlamaque is a site of definite historical value. It is on the Canadian Register of Historic Places because of its connection to the 1930s gold rush in Abitibi.

Between 1927 and1950, many men looking for work came to Abitibi hoping to find a job. Village-Minier-de-Bourlamaque was built in 1935 by Lamaque Gold Mines Limited to house the miners. It has a very particular architectural style. The next time you are passing through Abitibi, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to stop and visit the mining village. The site has two kinds of residential structures, namely, the workers' houses and the posh homes of the former mine managers, who were called “boss” at the time, even in French.

Everything still exhibits the unique character of the1930s village. Most of the houses in the village are still inhabited today, and the owners are responsible for maintaining the historic character when they do renovations. Conservation and original appearance are important to safeguarding the heritage and drawing tourists to the village, not only for the city of Val-d'Or but the entire Abitibi-Témiscamingue region.

Very few people know that one of the first buildings in the Abitibi region was built in 1836, namely, the Sainte-Clotilde church in Kitcisakik. Still standing today, this church was built on the fur trade with Algonquin trappers from the area. It is now a designated religious heritage site in Quebec. It is one of the first buildings built in my riding. Dating back to 1836, it is nearly 200 years old.

In Whapmagoostui, which is at the limit of James Bay and Hudson's Bay, we find sites such as the Church of St. Edmund, constructed in 1879. Historic sites are important to maintain. It is critical that our history is understood and remembered, so that we can maintain an understanding of our past so that it is not forgotten.

Additionally, promotion of restoration efforts will create good, skilled jobs and promote economic development, while at the same time encourage tourism and promote respectful development while restoration efforts can help reduce environmental impacts of new building construction. This act would allow those struggling to afford the costs of rehabilitation projects to move forward.

However, it would also provide handouts to wealthy people who are not in need of assistance whatsoever. It does not seem reasonable to me that we should subsidize costs to rehabilitate these historic buildings while there is also a housing crisis in this country. I want clarity that the revenues lost from this bill will not impact Canada's ability to address the need for social housing in this country. As an indigenous person, I am very sensitive to that issue.

This bill gives me a chance to talk about the different priorities that a government needs to balance. A government has a responsibility toward the people who live within its borders. We all know that in Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees all people the same right. However, Canadian governments have shown that their priorities do not include ensuring the same standards of programs and services for indigenous people that they provide to other Canadians.

In general, I question the government's housing policy. However, today I question more specifically how a bill like Bill C-323 will respond to the current housing needs in indigenous communities. Unfortunately, due to Canada's colonial history, forced relocation, land appropriations, and poor government infrastructure in indigenous communities, we do not have many heritage properties. Therefore, if we are to implement a bill like this one, which will potentially reduce government revenues by millions of dollars annually, what will this mean for the indigenous people and indigenous communities in desperate need of housing? Will the government increase revenues elsewhere to ensure that the human rights of indigenous people are upheld?

Through the rules of the Indian Act, colonial governments have created the housing crisis that indigenous communities are experiencing. Under the act, restrictions on land ownership often prevent the development of housing programs. It is estimated that by 2031, the housing shortage on reserves will rise to 115,000 units. In order to bring the number of people living in each home on reserve down to the Canadian average of 2.5 persons per home, an additional 80,000 first nations homes are needed right now, yet the 2016 federal budget provided funding for first nations housing of just $206.6 million, which is enough to pay for 300 new homes, the servicing of 340 new housing lots, and the renovation of about 1,400 homes. To use the housing problem in my riding of Nunavik as another example, the aboriginal peoples Senate committee hearing on housing was told that Nunavik needs over 1,100 houses immediately. The $50 million included in budget 2016 is less than a quarter of the funds needed to address that shortage.

I have been asked many times by many colleagues on both sides of the House what the most important issue is facing indigenous people today, and what the government should do now to make reparations of historic injustices. Indigenous issues in this country have been neglected for so long that every single issue has become a priority.

I have one minute left. I just want to say that the NDP will support Bill C-323 because we believe in restoring historic buildings that are part of our heritage. Obviously, we also believe that it is important to understand how expensive these renovations are.

We will seek to amend the bill during review in committee in order for the tax credit to also be offered to people with a low or medium income. A billionaire can afford to renovate an old building, but it is harder for the average Canadian or low-income earners.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise today to debate Bill C-323. Before I do so, I want to thank my colleague, the member for York—Simcoe, for bringing forward the bill. As our opposition critic for Canadian heritage, I consider him to be a national treasure for his hard work on this file.

In fact, this is not the only private member's business he has brought forward. He also has two other motions on the Order Paper, Motion No. 67 and Motion No. 62, which are equally important matters that I hope the House will take up at some point. There is the recognition of Sir John A. Macdonald's summer home in Rivière-du-Loup, and Motion No. 62, which recognizes the birth place of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker in Neustadt, Ontario, which is just outside my riding. It is an important historical marker in southern Ontario, recognizing an exceptional prime minister.

To the bill at hand, it is an important bill for our communities and for the preservation of our historical heritage properties across our great country. I have to admit that I have a soft spot for heritage buildings. There are many beautiful older buildings in my riding of Perth—Wellington, which I am proud to highlight from time to time. In fact, my Wellington county constituency office is in one such heritage building. It is a beautiful old post office. It was the Harriston town post office for many years. Unfortunately, as often these older buildings do, it fell into a state of disrepair.

Shortly after I was elected, I was able to take a tour of the building and to see the state of repair it was in at the time. Thanks to a hard-working local family, it took ownership of the old post office and restored it to an exceptionally high level of standard. Now my constituency office in Wellington county is located in that building. It has been renamed the “Old Post” and is now home to a number of different local businesses and community groups. I am proud to have played a small role in the restoration of that building.

In Perth—Wellington, we also have other important sites, such as the Fryfogal Tavern and Arboretum. The Fryfogel Tavern is actually the last surviving site along the Huron Tract from the 1800s. It is an old building with a great degree of heritage and history associated with it. Its original proprietor, Sebastian Fryfogel, was a Swiss national who came to Canada at the time. He served as the first acting warden of Perth county. He served as a tax collector for the county and was the local militia leader. He had a strong history in the country.

Currently, the Stratford Perth Heritage Foundation is working to have that site designated as a national historic site. If it is successful, it would be the first national historical site in Canada to have a Swiss connection. Being of Swiss heritage myself, I find it is an important issue to highlight because it is an important site. I look forward to seeing Parks Canada review that documentation to hopefully make it a national historical site.

With 2017 upon us, and the 150th anniversary of Confederation, preserving and protecting our national heritage is important, now more than ever. Bill C-323 certainly would help us to do that.

As all members will know, rehabilitation and preservation of historic and heritage buildings is not necessarily easy. Nor is it inexpensive. When dealing with century-plus old buildings, the wiring is no longer up to code and accessibility standards have not been kept up to code. In many cases, neglected roofs need to be replaced, insulation needs to be redone, and windows need reinstallation in a way that preserves the historic and heritage nature of those buildings. Unfortunately, it is often not economically or financially viable to undertake these important renovations, so buildings are often demolished or, as the member for Kingston and Islands mentioned earlier, are left to be demolished by neglect. This is unfortunate because we lose a part of our history when we lose these important buildings.

Bill C-323 proposes to introduce a tax credit for expenses related to the rehabilitation of a historic property and will establish a tax deduction for the capital costs of property used in the course of historic properties rehabilitation. This will provide the owners of historical properties with a tax credit of up to 20% of the cost of rehabilitating the property, which will incentivize owners to restore their properties and assist them in their efforts to do so. In short, it makes it more affordable to preserve historical buildings, thus allowing more of our great historical architecture to remain standing rather than be demolished.

Bill C-323 would also create an accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible capitalized costs incurred during the same conditions of the tax credit. It would do so by allowing a minor reduction on the owner's income tax for the costs of rehabilitating the building. This would ensure that when owners of an historic property undertake restoration work at personal expense they are compensated. The restoration of a historic property, after all, is indeed a public good and it is only fair that, when individuals do the work at their own personal expense, we as a country are able to help in some way.

I understand there are some concerns that have been brought forward by different people about this bill, but I think that it strikes the right balance in preserving our heritage but also incentivizing individuals while respecting the public coffers as well. There are certain guidelines included in this bill. First, not any building qualifies. The building must first be on the National Register of Historic Places. Second, an architect must certify that the eligible building has undergone rehabilitation in accordance with the standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in Canada, and this will ensure that proper rehabilitation work has been done in accordance with the standards. It also incorporates a 10-year limit that the tax credit can be used. This strikes the right balance in terms of providing adequate support but not becoming too high a cost on the federal treasury.

I would also like to remind hon. members in this House that this bill is supported by a number of heritage and historical groups, including the National Trust for Canada, a not-for-profit organization dedicated to preserving our national heritage. In fact, the organization appeared with a brief before the Standing Committee on Finance, and the brief stated, “The federal tax system and federal spending are vital instruments shaping the ability of Canadians to protect and revitalize heritage places”. The brief went on to recommend that the government should introduce a federal rehabilitation tax incentive for heritage properties in Canada. Bill C-323 would do such a thing. It would help us preserve our national heritage buildings and our national collective heritage.

Again, I want to congratulate the member for York—Simcoe for bringing forward this important bill. It is an exceptionally pertinent and important way of preserving our heritage buildings, and we as parliamentarians should make every effort possible to encourage those who own heritage buildings to undertake the necessary work to keep them in good repair.

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

Mr. Speaker, today Canadians proudly stand upon thousands of years of Canadian history and heritage. From the breathtaking totem poles that line the British Columbia coast, to the Algonquin wigwams that housed indigenous peoples on the unceded land upon which this Parliament currently sits, to Cape Spear Lighthouse on Newfoundland's eastern tip, to Fort Rodd Hill on B.C.'s Vancouver Island, to even the Justice Building down the road, the history reflected in our country's built heritage is simply astounding.

In this our nation's capital, we are surrounded by structures whose foundational stones were similarly foundational to the country we now call Canada. They herald the amazing accomplishments we have had together and serve as a reminder of the chapters in our history that we have not yet atoned for.

Throughout my 32 years working with Parks Canada, I was incredibly lucky to come face to face with Canada's built heritage every day. Through my work with the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and Parks Canada's national historic sites branch, I saw the impact our heritage has on communities and heard the stories people told about their historic sites.

In Saskatchewan, Batoche National Historic Site reminds residents of the independent spirit of the northwest resistance. In Yukon, Dawson City returns us to the excitement of the Klondike gold rush, while in British Columbia, Colwood's Fisgard Lighthouse lets people on the open waters know they have reached home, just as it has done since 1860.

Across the country, Canada's built heritage reminds us of where we came from and where we have been along the way. From the smallest rural towns to our grandest cities, the history contained within these buildings forms what it means to call our communities home.

When I think about built heritage in my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City, I think of George Lawrence House or Matheson House and what these places meant to the origins of both Surrey and Langley. While perhaps only the most ardent heritage buffs across Canada would be able to call upon their history, they have a profound value to the residents of my riding.

This is what makes heritage so valuable to maintain across the country. Everyone can think of a few national historic sites that inspire awe and instill wonder, but what makes them so valuable is their effect on the individual. Just as I take pride in the historic sites in my community, I am sure everyone in the House can identify a building, an area, or a district in their own riding without which their community would not be the same.

As the National Trust for Canada said, Canada's communities are made up of historic places that define our cultural identify, give shape and texture to our urban and rural communities, and attract tourist dollars. Yet every day, these places are being destroyed through desertion, decay, and demolition.

Today I would like to discuss Bill C-323 and measures that I firmly believe will benefit all Canadians. This discussion centres on three fundamental considerations concerning how this legislation would create tangible environmental, financial, and social benefits.

Canada's home-building industry is one our country's largest. It provides enormous economic benefits to our national economy and is the livelihood for many thousands of middle-class Canadians. This sector should be stimulated and encouraged, but we must do so in a way that is also environmentally responsible.

In most Canadian municipalities, home building is a major contributor to landfill waste. For example, Alberta's provincial department of the environment found that 25% of the province's landfill waste was generated by construction. By promoting the preservation of existing buildings, much of this discarded waste could be avoided, preserving natural resources and limiting the release of landfill greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, the preservation and maintenance of existing housing stock has consistently been shown to decrease potential C0₂ emissions. According to the National Trust, if every heritage property in Canada were to be restored rather than demolished and replaced with a new structure, this would represent the avoidance of C0₂ emissions equivalent to the annual energy use of approximately 14.83 million homes. To put this in a more familiar context, in the city of Ottawa, which Statistics Canada listed as having 151,495 single detached homes in 2011, this energy savings would meet the energy needs of all of Ottawa's single family homes for approximately 98 years. This is not just a lot of heritage meaningfully conserved. It is an incredibly positive environmental initiative.

Despite this, there is a frequently cited argument that suggests that tearing down heritage properties is in fact environmentally prudent. The logic behind this claims that heritage properties are equipped with out of date furnishings and technology that would otherwise help reduce their environmental footprint. Despite the fact that newly constructed homes are often more environmentally efficient, the resources needed to demolish and construct a new home means that it takes several decades for the new structure to become a net environmental benefit over the existing heritage property.

As the Preservation Green Lab reported in its study, "The Greenest Building", it takes anywhere from 10 to 80 years for a new building that is 30% more efficient than an average-performing existing property to overcome, through efficient operations, the negative climate change impacts related to its construction.

The environmental benefits to heritage preservation are easy to see and an indication of the importance of the federal government's role in actively promoting it as an environmentally superior practice. Just as environmental protection benefits all Canadians, Bill C-323 would lead to equally comprehensive financial benefits.

To more closely examine the economic ramifications of Bill C-323, it is worth looking at the experience of our neighbours to the south. In 1981, the United States passed legislation creating a 25% federal tax credit for restoration of heritage sites. This built on legislation that was first introduced in 1976. In the three and a half decades since then, it is estimated that $23.1 billion in federal tax credits have generated in excess of $120.8 billion in private investment in historic buildings. This is roughly a 5:1 ratio of private to public investment, all of which ultimately ended back in the domestic U.S. economy.

Not only did the U.S. federal government's heritage restoration tax credit benefit the restoration industry, it boosted the entire national economy. This is due to the money multiplier effect, which explains how money being spent in one industry is eventually recycled into the broader civic, provincial, and national economy. If workers are paid to restore a heritage home, they may spend that money at Tim Hortons, whose employees will go on to, say, get a haircut, at which point the barber will buy sports equipment for his daughter. This cycle is essential to a government's economic considerations, and means that money invested in one area will necessarily benefit Canadians across the country.

In the United States, the confluence between public and private investments in heritage restoration has created great economic benefit. As the National Trust for Canada estimated, while the U.S. federal government spent $23.1 billion in restoration tax credits over the last 40 years, this credit resulted in an additional $28.1 billion in tax revenue, a net gain of $5 billion in tax revenue for that country. In short, the U.S. federal government made money by promoting heritage restoration.

In addition, heritage tourism represents a significant contributor to Canada's economy. Tourism is a multi-billion dollar a year industry, and it is estimated that cultural tourism accounts for one-third of that market. Reflecting the importance of this industry, the Canadian Tourism Commission reports that heritage tourism represents the past visitation of 34.5 million Americans and 2.6 million Canadian tourists.

As I have outlined above, I strongly believe that the preservation of Canada's heritage is a noble goal in and of itself. With that being said, however, the United States example shows how heritage preservation creates tangible benefits to society on the whole.

Based on the estimates of the National Trust, whose tireless efforts have left an indelible legacy on Canada's built heritage, since 1981, the United States heritage restoration tax credit has directly led to the preservation of over 41,000 historic properties that would have otherwise likely been left to neglect or demolition. This alone is a remarkable achievement, but it is the impacts on the broader society that make me believe Canada would be well served by a similar measure.

Along with tens of thousands of properties saved, the U.S. tax credit is estimated to have led to the creation of over 525,000 housing units, including 146,000 dedicated to low- and medium-income housing. In every corner of the country, we hear concerns about housing affordability. In my riding of Cloverdale—Langley City, I can safely say it is the topic about which I hear the most from my constituents.

Today, we are debating legislation that would help address Canada's growing housing issue, but this is not the only benefit that Bill C-323 would deliver to Canadians across the country. In tandem with an increase in housing units, the U.S. tax credit is credited with creating 2.4 million jobs. These are reliable, middle-class positions across a multitude of sectors, and would ultimately benefit the entire Canadian economy. This money would overwhelmingly go to small and medium enterprises based in Canada, and the increase in employment would give communities across Canada a welcome boost.

Not only is heritage good for communities as they currently exist, but it benefits community rehabilitation. One can think of communities across Canada, such as Toronto's Distillery District, Winnipeg's Exchange District, and Vancouver's Chinatown, where heritage and culture are inseparably entwined.

This bill would not guarantee the preservation of all heritage buildings in Canada, but it is a great first start. In Canada's 150th year, I can think of nothing more appropriate than signalling our support for both the history of this great country and the welfare of the people living in it today. In this spirit, I offer my support for Bill C-323 and encourage my colleagues in this House to do the same.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this idea of a heritage tax credit to preserve the historical aspects of our community and make them richer places to live is an idea that is long overdue, an idea whose time has come.

I want to thank all those who have spoken in support of this from all sides of the House. In particular, I want to thank the members for Cloverdale—Langley City and Kingston and the Islands, not just for their excellent workmanlike detailed addresses, but also for all their hard work in assisting me with this proposal.

It is indeed, as those addresses indicate, a non-partisan bill. This is not a partisan effort. It is very much a product of the work of previous governments, both Liberal and Conservative, under which the foundations of this tax credit have been developed in this proposal, and it is a benefit to all of Canada. That is why all of us are indeed advocating for it.

I want to address a couple of criticisms that were made in the first hour of debate of the bill. The first is that its benefit, in terms of providing a tax credit, produced an inequality in that it was applying to some homeowners and not to others.

I would put it to the House that the inequality that exists is when we ask certain homeowners through a heritage designation to take on that private burden of supporting the public benefit. It is a real cost to them to have to support a heritage building. We are in fact working toward addressing that inequality by easing that burden somewhat, saying that if an individual is to take on the public burden of restoring a heritage building from which we all benefit, and at a much higher cost than normal construction, we will help ease that a little bit and take that step toward equality of providing that public benefit.

Another critique was, in fact, kind of the opposite. It was a suggestion that there are already tax credits in place for donations to preserve heritage buildings. Those tax credits apply to exactly the people who will not be able to benefit from this tax credit, and the people who would be able to benefit from this tax credit cannot benefit from those already in place. Those are to non-profit organizations, not to private individuals or businesses who are being asked to preserve heritage buildings.

In fact, once again, we are filling a gap that exists. The criticism there is indeed misplaced, and in fact the bill goes some distance to level that playing field and improve that overall. I certainly want to set that record straight.

Finally, there is some suggestion that there are floodgates here, that with so many heritage properties, there is no way of knowing what the cost of this will be. In fact, people know well what the cost would be within the government, as they have assessed it, and it is a very modest cost compared with things like the project to restore these buildings here on Parliament Hill that are very important heritage buildings for our country. It is a small fraction of that, and in fact the entire design of the bill contains those costs and keeps them under control. It is a taxpayer-responsible bill.

Only properties on the national historic sites register would quality, a relatively limited list. The credit would be only 20%, in contrast with the 25% in the U.S., and of course the capital cost allowance is not that much of a benefit; it is simply a changing of the period of time over which a normal writeoff would occur, to a little bit faster writeoff. Therefore the actual bottom line impact for the taxpayers is limited, but the incentive for the person or the business to undertake the heritage restoration is significant.

I think those critiques ring a little bit hollow. I appreciate them, but I think overwhelmingly we have an opportunity here to pull together and build stronger communities through supporting the restoration of heritage buildings in all our communities, those heritage buildings that make them so important.

That is why so many communities, municipal councils, have weighed in to support this. I will just read a list of some of them that have so far indicated their support: Pincher Creek, Alberta; Edwardsburgh/Cardinal, Ontario; City of New Westminster, British Columbia; Calgary, Alberta; Town of Halton Hills, Ontario; Town of Atikokan, Ontario; City of Windsor, Ontario; municipalité de Saint-Felix-de-Kingsey, Quebec; Township of Machar, Ontario; Town of Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan; City of Victoria, British Columbia; municipalité de Palmarolle, Quebec; City of Terrace, British Columbia; District of Chetwynd, British Columbia; Ville de Saint-Lazare, Quebec; Ville de Cookshire-Eaton, Quebec; Town of Hearst, Ontario; municipalité de Pike River, Quebec; Municipality of Central Elgin, Ontario; County of Brant, Ontario; Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury, Ontario; Municipality of Kincardine, Ontario; Calder, Saskatchewan; Town of Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia.

I see that my time is up well before I can get to the end of that list, but it gives members some indication of the breadth and depth of support all across this country from municipal councils and the people who are charged by us day to day to preserve those communities, their built heritage, and to build great places to live. They support this; they are foursquare behind it. That is why I encourage all members of the House to express their support for this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 22, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Air Transportation

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this adjournment proceeding to come back to a question I asked the Minister of Transport in November 2016 regarding non-designated airports in Canada.

For the benefit of those watching us at home, I will sum up the situation. The 89 airports in Canada that are designated can receive services from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. Unfortunately, there are more than 89 airports in Canada. Unfortunately, regional airports are non-designated and are not on this list.

The problem we have in Sherbrooke is that we have an airport with a runway long enough to accommodate large aircraft and a terminal large enough for security screening. However, ours is not among the 89 designated airports. Adding an airport to the list of designated airports is easy enough. There is a regulation for that. It is a matter of adding a schedule to the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, 2012. The list of 89 designated airports can be found in the schedule of these regulations.

These regulations were created in response to the September 11 attacks to provide maximum security in our airports. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority was also created. At the time, it was determined that 87 airports would be designated, because it was believed the level of risk justified their designation. A few years later, there was even a decision made to add two airports, in Mont-Tremblant and Red Deer. The mechanism is therefore quite simple. Airports can be added to the list. At that time, the number of airports went from 87 to 89.

Sherbrooke has long been asking for what nine other airports are also asking for, which is to be added to the list. Just as we are asking to be added to the list, some airports that do have the designation are not even using it. Some airports in Canada are designated and are on the list of 89, but have no regular or commercial flights. Ultimately, the designation does not mean much. These airports are not in operation.

However, airports such as the Sherbrooke airport and others are ready to move forward. Sherbrooke had even signed an agreement in principle with an airline for commercial flights. Unfortunately, one of the conditions of the agreement was that security check points be set up in the airport, which did not happen under the previous government. The best they could do, and it is important to mention this, was to come up with a way for non-designated airports to set up screening check points anyway, but on a cost-recovery basis.

This is a viable solution for Sherbrooke. We are currently attempting to set up the necessary check points with this mechanism. However, the fact remains that the simplest and quickest solution would be to have Sherbrooke become the 90th designated airport. Another solution would be to remove an airport from the list, because it is just as easy to add one as it is to remove one. We could remove an airport that is not being used. There are some. We could keep the 89 designated airports if that is what the government absolutely wants to do. We could continue to have 89 designated airports substituting one for another.

My question is when does the government intend to propose an amendment to the regulation adding to the list of airports, or changing some of the current designations in order to keep the number of designated airports to 89?

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising the issue of security screening services at small airports. This is an important issue because our government's goal is to develop a modern, efficient transportation system that supports a growing economy. Moreover, Canada’s aviation sector is a key contributor to our standard of living, economy, connectivity to the world and prosperity.

Small airports and the air carriers that fly in and out of them play an important role in this sector. Aviation security is of considerable importance to this government. Canada has developed and maintained one of the most secure aviation systems in the world, one that is multi-layered, flexible and responsive to current issues and fully engages its national and international aviation security partners.

Of the 200 airports in Canada that handle some degree of commercial activity, 89 are designated by regulation for mandatory Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA, screening. Aviation security in Canada takes a risk-based approach. Applying a risk-based approach means that we dedicate comparatively more time, resources, and energy to areas of the system with greater risk.

As a result, passengers at lower risk airports do not undergo CATSA security screening. Over the past few years, several non-designated airports, including Sherbrooke Airport, have made requests to become designated in order to obtain security screening services from CATSA. Many of them have indicated that security screening will help attract airlines that could then offer routes to larger, designated airports, thereby increasing the airport’s and local communities' economic development opportunities.

Over the past few years, Transport Canada and CATSA have worked closely with various airports, including the Sherbrooke Airport, to establish a viable screening solution on a cost-recovery basis, but ultimately, it is up to the airport operators to make a business decision to determine whether the screening services they desire are cost-effective.

To conclude, Canada has one of the strongest aviation security programs in the world, and we are committed to promoting the security of our aviation system by striking the right balance between security, efficiency, and fiscal responsibility, while paying close attention to risk.