- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sarnia—Lambton
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $118,419.33
- Government Page
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I care about the species. I care about the environment.
What I do not like is those who are in power using excuses, such as designating a heritage site that may be just conveniently a heritage site because it is in the way of a natural resources project that is going to be built. Perhaps those in power pick that one bird that could only be in that one place in order to prevent something from going forward. That is the kind of abuse of power we do not want to see. That is why we need protections in this bill to prevent it.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes, it is very important to have discussions with the first nations, between nations. It is very good that Quebec has an agreement that allows for these discussions, but the other provinces and territories do not have such agreements.
I do not think it is a win if the government announces that we can designate historic sites, but there is no money to put measures in place. I worry that this will exacerbate the situation.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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.
1630 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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?
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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?
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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?
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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?
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that Bill C-23 has many good parts, but subclause 43(3) would allow the unlawful search and seizure of people's property without a warrant while they were in parks. That is contrary to section 8 of the charter.
I ask the member if the government would be willing to take that part out of the bill since it is in violation of people's charter rights?
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech and for all of his work for our beautiful parklands.
Bill C-23 has many things I agree with, but I am concerned about one part of it and that is—
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
