Debates of March 21st, 2023

Historic Places of Canada Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, if that did not make it on the record, the member for Winnipeg North shared that he has my speeches on repeat when he goes home. Unfortunately, it has not had the desired effect. You would think that if he were really watching and listening, he would—

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

We will go to another question.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was very wide ranging.

I will try to be as quick as possible while addressing all the different topics he mentioned.

First, to reduce red tape, the Bloc Québécois would like a single tax return. I hope that the Conservatives will also think about that.

Concerning today's issue, that is the bill for indigenous people, I have just come back from the United Nations, where the issue of water was discussed. During this trip with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I noted that Canada is lagging behind and that, because of the actions of previous governments over the past few decades, today, in 2023, there are indigenous people who do not have water. That is absolutely unacceptable.

I just got back from an Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting where we discussed the fact that the way Canada has treated indigenous peoples for quite some time is a stain on its international reputation.

Furthermore, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying the issue of human trafficking. Ninety-six percent of the victims of human trafficking are women. That is an astonishing percentage. Of that 96%, a significant percentage are indigenous women being exploited in human trafficking and modern slavery.

Beyond the symbolism of historic sites, how can we take concrete action to support indigenous peoples?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned human trafficking. I believe she is one of the co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, and I want to thank her and all members who are involved in that group, including my Conservative colleague from Peace River—Westlock. This is a very important issue, and it requires additional action.

I agree with the point the member is making about Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. It has been easy for the current government to reach for acts of recognition. Acts of recognition are very important, and I do not want to dismiss those at all, but they are not as important as the substantive changes that happen on the ground. Making designations and apologies, and putting a plaque on a historic site, are things that are very meaningful, but they do not have the same level of impact as clean drinking water, and jobs and opportunities in all parts of the country, which are areas where the government has fallen behind. It found it easy to make steps of recognition and harder to actually deliver the results.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill would add three members to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board from first nations, Métis and Inuit groups. This is not about adding red tape. Indigenous people's sitting on this board is not red tape. In fact, this bill is in response to the truth and reconciliation call to action number 79. These are not recommendations. These are obligations of Canada.

When the member refers to gatekeepers and indigenous people, the only way I can bring that connection to gatekeepers is that indigenous people are caretakers. They are caretakers of our lands and caretakers of the people who live on their lands. I do not think they should be referred to as gatekeepers in this context.

I will bring it back to the dissenting report the Conservatives put forward in the 2017 report on heritage sites from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. They agreed in principle with the report and supported indigenous perspectives on heritage sites. However, they emphasized that this would be “representing additional stresses to the federal government’s fiscal framework”. Does my colleague acknowledge that seeking and protecting the truth requires funding and resources, or does he think it should be forgotten and support the colonizers' approach to remembering Canada's history?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are a few respects in which, respectfully, my colleague attributed views to me, either directly or indirectly, that I do not hold. I, for instance, do not oppose, and in fact I would support, the inclusion of indigenous representatives on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. I did make the point that the appointment process for those individuals remains one that the government is able to control. I suggested that maybe, when we talk about indigenous representation on certain boards, we should think of ways for that appointment process to ensure those individuals are in some way selected by the community, but I certainly agree with the principle of representation.

The issue I have with this bill is not about the powers it would give to indigenous communities. It is actually about powers it would give to the minister because the minister would have extraordinary powers under this legislation concerning the designation of sites and setting regulations for their use.

When I was speaking about gatekeepers, I was speaking about powers that are vested in the hands of government to arbitrarily block or control development in ways that are contrary to what may well be what local indigenous people want as well. I hope that clarifies that the issue is with the powers of the ministers. That is the concern we have. We are supporting the bill in principle, but these are issues we are going to raise at committee.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very long speech. I am going to talk about the very long detour that he made at the beginning, as we were all wondering how he was going to land on topic. He eventually got there after a few minutes. He talked about housing, actually, and he touted his party, which released a housing plan two weeks ago.

I have never heard the Conservatives come up with coherent solutions to the housing crisis that we are experiencing in Canada right now. Obviously, the current Liberal government is useless. It is one of the worst governments we have ever seen when it comes to the housing crisis. CMHC economists say that, in Quebec alone, 1,100,000 units need to be built over the next 10 years to address the crisis.

We often hear the Conservatives, who have close ties to the private sector, say that the private sector will take care of it. It is true, the private sector will build 500,000 units, but governments will have to somehow step in and build 600,000 units in the next 10 years. That means the government is going to have to spend and invest to fix this problem.

Does my colleague have a plan for tackling this crisis?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will say that the announcement our leader made last week was quite historic. It was so historic that the place where he made the announcement might one day be designated a historic site. The important point about that announcement was that, in the current situation, we are seeing so much gatekeeping at the municipal level. We need a federal government that is prepared to stand up and say, across levels of government, on the funding the federal government provides, that we need to ensure barriers are removed and housing is getting built.

There are a variety of different factors that influence the price of housing, but a key one surely has to be the supply of housing. If there is not enough housing supply, then prices are going to be pushed up. I will say that it was a historic announcement by our leader, and it will be proven to have a very significant impact. Conservatives have been proposing a number of different measures around improving access to housing for a long time, including opening up federal lands and other such measures. Our leader is taking this as an important step further with these historic proposals.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by mentioning that I will be sharing my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I, for one, will focus on the topic at hand. I do not need to say that previous speeches have covered just about everything except Bill C‑23, which I am going to talk about. I want to talk about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action 79, which calls for an inclusive and transparent designation framework to protect federal historic sites for current and future generations. I am thinking of our children and grandchildren. What we are doing today is for their future. This is about designating our built heritage, designating historic sites that have been neglected over time and demonstrating the importance of involving indigenous communities in decision-making.

Bill C‑23 is a critical step in ensuring that places, persons and events of national significance are designated in a very inclusive manner. This sustainable and transparent bill reflects the depth of historical diversity. This designation will promote reconciliation and social cohesion.

The bill is guided by the principles of inclusivity, transparency and sustainability. It modernizes the identification, presentation and conservation of places, persons and events of national historic significance in order to ensure that the designation process is fair and equitable. We all have historic sites in our ridings that are facing challenges in terms of the environment, maintenance, budget or recognition. These files often get lost amid all of the other files that we have to deal with in our ridings. This bill pays special attention to our country's rich cultural heritage and the presence of the first peoples. It is very important to recognize their heritage in Canada.

In addition, the bill will ensure that federal historic sites are protected for current and future generations. This will allow these sites to be repurposed and adapted for a changing climate, thus contributing to a sustainable future for Canadians. In my constituency, some heritage buildings were heavily damaged during the 2019 floods. We did everything we could. We filled sandbags and gathered teams of volunteers to protect the buildings, but we need to do more because climate change is here to stay. We are here to confront it. Thanks to Bill C‑23, we can be there for historic buildings and sites, but we will also have an action plan and be able to add them to a proper register so we know where they are located and how they should be conserved.

The bill also touches on authority over historic canals. I want to talk about historic canals. All historic canals are federal historic sites administered by the Parks Canada Agency. That means the provisions relating to the protection and conservation of federal historic sites would apply to historic canals, as would the provisions relating to regulations, enforcement, offences and penalties.

The Carillon Canal, which is in my riding, is one of nine historic canals. The famous Rideau Canal is another. Incidentally, since taking office, we have made major investments to protect the Rideau Canal and to keep this beautiful heritage site open for tourism. There are others in Canada, including one in my riding that will be protected by Bill C‑23. The Carillon Canal is located in the magnificent municipality of Saint‑André D'Argenteuil in my riding. The canal is on the Ottawa River in Carillon, Quebec, and it was designated a national historic site of Canada in 1929. It will soon celebrate the 100th anniversary of the day it was recognized for its importance to Canada's history and economy. Today, the canal serves as a crossing for the Carillon hydropower generating station and provides a gathering place for people in my community. To me, it is an honour.

The bill would also provide for the power to make regulations respecting the administration of federal historic sites administered by the Parks Canada Agency. This power will make it possible to protect the heritage value of a historic site, including its cultural, historic and archeological resources, as well as its natural characteristics, its flora and its fauna. This power could also be used to ban certain harmful activities. I am proud to support this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about canals. I think this is a very good example of something we need a little more detail on in this bill. If the bill gives the sole responsibility for decision-making about heritage sites like canals to ministers, and something comes up that is a concern to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Tourism, what is the mechanism to sort out the differences?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill will enable us to not only identify and classify the infrastructure, but also assess its condition. How can we protect this infrastructure from climate change?

The simple act of entering the historic canals in the register will make it possible to work on improving the state of each of Canada's nine historic canals.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is interesting that he talked about historic canals. I was once hired to promote our historic canals for a few months. I had already visited those canals by sailboat with my father, since I learned to sail when I was young.

My colleague talked about the Rideau Canal. He also spoke about climate change. We all have good memories of skating on the Rideau Canal, but it is clear that climate change has consequences. I was not able to skate on the Rideau Canal this year. Climate change is also having an impact on indigenous peoples.

How can the government say that it wants to take action on climate change and that it cares about indigenous issues while continuing to invest so much money in things like Alberta's oil sands, which are still doing so much damage and have significantly contributed to the increase in greenhouse gases?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very relevant question about climate change. Our government has done more than any other government in Canadian history to deal with climate change, and we will continue to do so.

Indeed, the Rideau Canal unfortunately was not accessible. For the first time in Canada's history, the Rideau Canal did not open for skaters. That is proof that climate change is significant. We have to tackle it, and this bill will let us assess the Rideau Canal situation. Maybe we will be able to tackle this situation along with the environment so we can keep it open longer in the winter for skating.

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

Madam Speaker, in 2018, the Auditor General pointed out that the Liberal government was not assigning enough funding to national historic sites to keep them from falling apart. We are adding more, and with this bill, hopefully we will add more indigenous-led historic sites. I am wondering what the government's plan is to properly fund the preservation of these sites.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is high time that we were able to properly catalogue all our sites. In each of our constituencies, there are buildings that are abandoned, that are dilapidated because no work is being done and that have been improperly assessed. This bill will allow us to assess the condition of dilapidated buildings and implement action plans to protect our heritage. Right now, buildings are being condemned to demolition because they have not been maintained over the years.

It is time to pass a bill that will allow us all to work together for our Canadian heritage, for our children and grandchildren, to remind us that Canada has a legacy from the past.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening and speak to Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage. This is a bill we support, of course, in large part because it would contribute toward the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action 79.

At the outset, I will note two of the main things the bill would achieve. First, it would add three members to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board from first nations, Métis and Inuit groups. Second, it would require that Parks Canada incorporate indigenous knowledge into the designation and commemoration of historic sites. Of course, indigenous participation and leadership in these processes is so vitally important as we come to terms with the legacy of colonization and as we begin to fully recognize the value and significance of indigenous history in our country.

Earlier, I was talking to my colleague and friend, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, and he noted that despite the long indigenous habitation in the riding he represents, there is not a single indigenous national historic site. That prompted me to look at the list of national historic sites in British Columbia, and I was overwhelmed to see that there is a bit of an embarrassment of riches. I thought that at the outset I would read through some of the really remarkable national historic sites in Skeena—Bulkley Valley, which comprises northwest British Columbia, the beautiful north and central coast and the islands of Haida Gwaii. There are 15 of them, and I think all but five are indigenous sites. It is truly remarkable.

Five of the national historic sites in northwest B.C. are located in Haida Gwaii, many of them in Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and at the Haida heritage site. I am not going to try to accurately pronounce some of the village names, these ancient village sites that have been protected by the Haida people in partnership with the federal government, other than the village site of Skedans, which I had the great privilege to visit last summer alongside the Haida hereditary chief, Guujaaw, who has a long history of leadership on Haidi Gwaii. The former premier of British Columbia, John Horgan, was with us that day as well.

It was a gorgeous summer day, and we took a boat out to Skedans, a site also known as Koona. We walked among ancient trees and saw totem poles that date back hundreds of years covered in moss, with many of them leaning and some decomposing into the ground. We saw the house site excavations where majestic longhouses once stood, and I reflected on the long history. It made me recognize one of the great values of designating national historic sites relating to indigenous history: For newcomers like me and my family, it gives an opportunity to reflect on the length of indigenous occupation of these lands and waters.

The community that I currently live in was founded in 1913 with the advent of the railroad. On the north coast of British Columbia, there are archaeological sites that have habitations dating back 14,000 years. It is truly remarkable.

There are, of course, other national historic sites in northwest B.C. worth mentioning. Kitselas Canyon is a spot just outside of the community of Terrace, where the Kitselas Nation makes its home. The mighty Skeena River is forced through a cleft in the rock, and I had a chance last summer to paddle through it in my little solo canoe, which was a bit of a terrifying experience to be honest. The Kitselas people, who lived at the village site of Gitaus, were once toll-keepers on the Skeena River. As other nations travelled upriver, at this narrow canyon the Kitselas would charge a toll as they passed by. It is a really remarkable place.

Gitwangak Battle Hill is a national historic site near the village of Gitwangak. This is a historic hill fortress where the Gitwangak people, part of the Gitxsan Nation, defended against intruders. There are so many, I could easily fill my time reading them from this list.

Fort St. James is a historic Hudson Bay Company post on the shores of Stuart Lake, a place I had a chance to take my two daughters when they were very young. The first crossing of North America by Mackenzie in 1793 is noted as a national historic site in Bella Coola. The Chilkoot Trail extends between the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley and Alaska. These are all important sites, and they deserve protection.

There are many more historic sites in northwest British Columbia, particularly indigenous historic sites, that I believe are worthy. The hope is that this bill, should it pass into law, would empower the federal government, working with indigenous people, to seek out and designate additional sites and ensure that indigenous knowledge is properly recognized and communicated through the sites.

The two actions that I mentioned were adding members to the board and ensuring that Parks Canada properly incorporates indigenous knowledge. These are important things, but the other aspect beyond designating new sites and ensuring that knowledge is conveyed through these opportunities is that we need to properly resource and fund national historic sites so that this history is preserved for future generations. This is where the federal government has a lot of work to do.

I note that numerous studies have pointed to the need for additional funding for national historic sites. In 2017, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development issued a report recommending that the annual funding for the national cost-sharing program for heritage places be increased to a minimum of $10 million annually. However, the 2023-24 funding cycle only has $2 million available.

That brings me to a national historic site that I want to talk about in my remaining minutes, and that is the North Pacific Cannery. This is a historic salmon cannery on the bank of the Skeena River near the District of Port Edward. It operated between 1889, over 125 years ago, and 1981. It is owned by the District of Port Edward, a very small municipality, and run by a non-profit society. This is the last remaining intact salmon cannery on the west coast. It is a truly remarkable historic site.

At the North Pacific Cannery, I met with Knut Bjorndal, the mayor of Port Edward, as well as Heather Hadland-Dudoward, the manager of the cannery, and board president Mona Izumi. They talked about the need for more operational and restoration funding. There are 27 buildings that are part of the North Pacific Cannery. It reflects a unique piece of history of workers of indigenous, Chinese, Japanese and European descent who worked there on the bank of the Skeena River processing wild salmon. It hearkens back to an era when there was an incredible abundance of wild salmon coming up the Skeena River. We need to protect this place, and there is a need for additional resources to do so, both in operational funding and funding to renovate the buildings that are at risk of falling into the river or falling into greater disrepair.

This year in Prince Rupert, which is right next door, there are going to be over two dozen cruise ship visits. The cannery is a key tourist attraction for visitors to the north coast. Unless we invest in it properly, and unless the federal government recognizes the value of this history and provides adequate funding to the small non-profit society and tiny municipality that own and operate this site, there is a real concern that it will fail to meet its potential as a tourism destination. Then, future generations of visitors will be unable to reflect on the history that it represents. Much more gravely, it could also fall into serious disrepair, and aspects of this history could be lost forever.

I saw Mayor Bjorndal a couple of days ago. I told him that if I ever had a chance to plead his case in the House of Commons and urge the federal government to provide funding for the North Pacific Cannery, this truly unique historic site, I would do so.

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

Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's concern about the fact that the bill is ambitious. Currently, we cannot even fund the heritage sites we have in my riding. Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie came from Sarnia, and his grave is there. It was very difficult even to get money to keep that up. My worry is that the bill is supposed to promote reconciliation, but if it is not adequately funded and we are adding indigenous members to the board, they may start to perceive that they are not actually seeing anything.

Does the member share my concern?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, as I was remarking near the end of my speech, providing adequate resources is such a key component. It is not enough to simply alter the composition of the board or provide direction to Parks Canada; we also need to ensure that the federal government is providing adequate resources to protect our built history and ensure the designated sites have what they need to manage the history in perpetuity. I think that is a real shortcoming in the conversation around national historic sites.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his rather extraordinary speech. It made me want to go straight to British Columbia. In fact, I think the B.C. tourism board should hire him or should send his speech to people to encourage them to go there and see how interesting the historic sites really are. It really makes you want to go there.

Quite apart from Bill C‑23 currently before the House, I think everyone pretty much agrees today on the issues of truth and reconciliation. We have talked about housing, murdered women, homelessness, and the reserves in northern Ontario and Manitoba that still do not have clean water. Many challenges remain when it comes to reaching out to indigenous nations.

What does my colleague think is the priority issue that should be dealt with immediately other than Bill C‑23?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I will try. My French is a very early work in progress, but I heard the member's remarks about how much he values the effort, so I will do my best.

He was talking about reconciliation, the need for us to do better and to do more and the opportunity that national historic sites represent in that regard. I do not believe that the bill would go far enough toward realizing the potential of that, ensuring that we are portraying history and recognizing the sovereignty of these nations and the relationship we have as we should. This relationship is in its very early days, and I would have hoped that the bill would go further when it comes to national historic sites.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will follow up on the comments we heard just now. In terms of the funding that needs to be available for the upkeep of these sites, a lot of sites commemorating the indigenous history of our country really do not have a built environment. I think it is important to create the interpretive centres that would tell us, finally, about the indigenous history of Canada and to provide funding for that necessary part of our national historic sites.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the really important aspects of this work. We often fixate on the built environment, built history, artifacts and these types of things for interpretation. However, when it comes to indigenous history, so much of it is contextual and part of oral history. As such, having indigenous-led interpretation to help understand the context of places that are significant to indigenous people is very important. This deserves investment and attention from the federal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak in the House. Today, we are talking about Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage. Fortunately, it also has a short title: the historic places of Canada act.

This bill is an attempt to follow up on one of the recommendations from the truth and reconciliation report. Members will recall that the Right Hon. Stephen Harper made an official apology to first nations people for the residential school situations. He then commissioned this truth and reconciliation report, which came with over 90 recommendations. Recommendation number 79 is the one that this act is trying to address. Conservatives absolutely support this. Stephen Harper started it, and so we definitely want to see this come to pass and to send it to committee.

In my talk today, I am going to reflect on some of the concerns that I have with the bill, and as usual, some recommendations on how to fix them.

I will start with subclause 43(3). What happens in the parks part of this bill is that the park rangers would be given new authorities. They would be given similar authorities to what peace officers have. They would then carry out their work. Basically, I want to read subclause 43(3) because it is very concerning. It states:

A park warden or enforcement officer may exercise any powers under [search and seizure] without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist, but by reason of exigent circumstances it would not be practical to obtain one.

It would obviously be a violation of section 8 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to search and seize without a warrant, so the important part of that phrasing is “exigent circumstances”. However, I do not know that a park ranger would necessarily understand that they would normally get a warrant, but if someone were going to be injured or some building were going to be destroyed or something, there may be some urgent circumstance. Moreover, there is no indication of a requirement for training on that. Therefore, there needs to be some training.

The second concern I have with this bill is that it would give additional powers to the minister and to the Governor in Council, which is essentially cabinet, to designate places or to prevent a place from being designated. That is way too much power to give to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. I say that because he has a history of doing things to influence the outcomes that he likes or does not like.

For example, in 2022, he decided to put in regulations about migratory birds, which caused a delay in the Trans Mountain pipeline project. He has already said he never wants to see that project built. I would not want a situation where there is some kind of project or natural resources thing that is in the national public interest and the minister has the sole power to decide to designate a heritage place that would become a barrier to that project. We do not need to put that kind of power in his hands. We have to keep in mind that this is the minister who, in his former life, was arrested for his environmental activism. For example, in my riding, I have a heritage site that is where oil was first discovered in North America. I do not ever want to see the minister have the power to decide that is not going to be a designated site anymore. That sole-power thing is a problem, and there need to be checks in place.

Under clause 34, another thing the Governor in Council, which is really cabinet, could do is to make regulations on about 18 different circumstances. This is becoming a chronic problem with bills that the Liberal government brings forward. The Liberals have no detail in the bill and leave it to the regulations later. Sometimes, thinking about Bill C-11, the government knows what the criteria are that it is going to bring forward to the CRTC on what content should be promoted or buried. Even though the opposition has been asking the government to share that for more than a year, it will not do so.

If we look at Bill C-22, the bill about disabilities, it does not say who is eligible, how much they get and when they are going to get it. Those are details that are actually very important in order to approve bills in more than just principle.

We are at the stage where we are approving this one in principle, but the ability for cabinet to make regulations after the fact needs to be much more limited than it is. There needs to be some driver of why it could not be foreseen.

There is also a part of this bill that would increase indigenous representation on the board from first nations, Inuit and Métis, and that is a great addition. There are some occasions when they do not all agree on something. We have seen instances before, like with the Coastal gas project, for example, with the Wet'suwet'en, where 85% thought one thing and 15% thought another. Again, there does not seem to be a mechanism to resolve when the board cannot agree about something, so that would be very important.

Another protection I would like to see in this bill has to do with the issue of cancel culture. We have seen in our country, over the last few years, quite a number of historic monuments that were vandalized, destroyed or forced to be taken down. I think about the Queen Victoria statue. I would not want to get into a situation where somebody is not a monarchist and they become the minister and have the sole power to designate something as “not a site”, for example.

I remember when I was at university in Kingston, there used to be a pub there called Sir John A. Macdonald, and they made them take that away. I do not know if it was officially a historic site, but it was certainly historic in my life. I definitely do not want to see that.

Another thing is that 15 Christian churches have been burned, some of which were historical sites, and the government has not taken any action. How we are going to address the protection of things that are already heritage sites and not try to rewrite history, as it were? That will be an important question.

I also want to make sure the board members who are chosen have the best interests of the country and the people they are representing at heart. In my riding, there are people who are paid environmental activists who chain themselves to the employees' pipelines, etc. It could cause a lot of trouble if those people were on the board of this particular committee. Who is vetting the board members? It says the government is going to choose. If “government” means the Minister of the Environment, who was previously an environmental activist, then I do have a concern there as well.

Let us talk about navigable waters. There is a lot of red tape already in the area of navigable waters. There are federal regulations, there are provincial regulations and there is always a long delay in getting any resolution. Now we would have the Minister of Environment and Climate Change having powers, but what if the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Tourism do not agree? I have raised this point in the questions a few times, but there has not really been a good answer. There needs to be some mechanism to sort out who is on first and who has the prime responsibility. I personally do not think it should be the Minister of the Environment, when it comes to navigable waters. That is clearly something that is a concern of Fisheries and Oceans, unless it is for tourism.

If we think about some of the balancing of priorities, we know that when it comes to designating heritage sites, they are expensive to maintain. In my previous questions, I talked about, in my riding, Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie's grave, which was falling into disrepair and it took a really long time to get fixed. We need to make sure there is a plan in place to afford the things we are designating.

I do like the idea of a registry for those locations that are heritage locations. That will be helpful. I think it will also help prevent people from removing things that were at heritage sites, because the reasoning for them being chosen in the first place will be a part of that.

The final concern I have about this is that the government has brought this bill and again is giving more power to the government. Its track record is not great on this. We have seen numerous times that the government has used its powers and it was not in the interest of the people. I think that is why people are losing trust in the democracy and in the current government.

There need to be some protections put into this bill that would allow us to expand and recognize heritage sites, to afford to fix them, to make sure that we are not going to cancel them later and to make sure that it is clear how we sort out conflict.

Those are the main concerns that I have with the bill. I would be happy to answer any questions people have.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to the debate on what I would have thought was fairly straightforward legislation or definitely the principles of it. I do not necessarily agree with the official opposition, but I understand what it is saying. The legislation also has a very significant contribution toward reconciliation with call to action 79. From what I can tell, many of the discussions that have been coming forward could easily be dealt with at committee stage. My concern is to what degree the Conservative Party would like to see the bill passed. Is there an interest on its part to see it passed? As I said, it would be nice to see it passed before the end of the year.

Could the hon. member just provide her perspective, given the importance of the principles of the legislation, on when it could go to committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely would like to see this bill passed, but the reason we have to raise our concerns in the House at second reading is that my experience at committee has been that the Liberal government pays no attention to comments raised at committee.

Many committees are not televised, so the public will never know what the concerns are with the bill. We need to get them on the record today, and then the government has time to think about what the solutions are, to take my great suggestions, to put them in place and to get ready for committee.