Debates of March 21st, 2023

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #267

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

International Trade

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #268

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 25 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑23, An Act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Historic Places of Canada Act

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representatives for First Nations, Inuit and Métis

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

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

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

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

Reappointment

(2) A member may be reappointed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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?