SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Kyle Seeback

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Conservative
  • Dufferin—Caledon
  • Ontario
  • Voting Attendance: 64%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $136,309.03

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 170 - Mar/21/23
Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)
  • Mar/21/23 1:50:18 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-23 
Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to be able to discuss the bill today. I obviously think there are some very good things within the bill. I think that it would set up the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. It would add indigenous representation in response to truth and reconciliation recommendation number 79. I would quickly note that the piece of legislation before us had its first reading in June 2022. Here we are in March 2023, and it is coming up for second reading. I wonder why it has taken the government so long to do this. I was a history major in university. I love history. I love the concept of expanding Canadian historic sites from coast to coast to coast. I love the idea of finding ways to make sure we maintain them, like maintaining birthplaces of prime ministers. Therefore, there are certainly things within the bill that I like and am very happy to support. However, going through law school, we were always told that the devil is in the details. When I look at the bill, I describe it as “the iceberg bill”. I question why the Liberals have designed the bill in this way. If they really wanted unanimous consent for a bill like this, why did they put so many things in this particular piece of legislation that, quite frankly, can be considered controversial? I want to talk about those, and I am going to explain the actual pieces of the legislation that I find could be controversial. When I then combine this with how I have so little faith in the government to do what is right, it gives me incredible pause. For example, the government says it has done a lot to prevent the importation of goods made with forced labour from the Xinjiang region of China. However, we had a concurrence debate on that today, and the evidence is that the government did not do anything. This is one reason that I do not have a lot of faith in how it is going to implement certain sections of the bill. I want to talk about this. The first thing is that the bill would give the minister powers to recognize the national historic significance or national interest of places. The minister can make that designation. I think that is absolutely fine, but when it has taken place, the minister gets other powers. That is what I am concerned about, and I want to talk a bit about that. With respect to historic places and canals, this bill would give the minister the power to restrict and prohibit the navigation, anchoring and mooring of vessels in historic canals. If the government designates a different waterway as a historic place or historic waterway, will those powers extend there? For example, if we were to dedicate a certain portion of waters on the west coast of Canada as a new historic site or historic waterway, would the minister then have the power to determine whether navigation can go through that? If we think of the tourism industry on the west coast with the cruise ships, etc., would the minister be able to limit where the cruise ships can operate? That is sort of deeply problematic to me. Right here in Ontario, we have the Trent-Severn system. Thousands of Canadians have cottages along this system, and the minister would have the power to restrict or prohibit vessels from mooring or operating in the Trent-Severn Waterway. The government will say that the minister would never do that unless they absolutely had to, but the reasons for being able to make that designation are not defined in the bill. It is a blank cheque. I am sorry to say this, but I would never give the government a blank cheque for anything because it just has such a terrible track record on things like this. The bill is highly problematic, and it has to be studied at committee. I am very hopeful the government members, recognizing how important it is to add indigenous representation to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, will put some guardrails in place to restrain the minister's powers to make these kinds of restrictions or prohibitions. That is the way to build consensus with all parties and make sure the bill will have speedy passage. The government does not have a good track record of doing that, though. The general approach has been that it is the government's way or the highway. Therefore, I am asking its members today to make sure that there is going to be a very collaborative approach to how we do this. The member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin spoke about the Leduc No. 1 well and the historic significance of that, which could be designated by the minister. The minister has the power to designate a historic place. That is fine. I think there are somewhere near 36,000 submissions on this. These designations would take place from coast to coast to coast. The devil is in the details of that, because the bill also gives the power that the minister may have the authority over lands adjoining or incidental to historic places. What does that mean? Why has that not been clearly defined in the act? Let us say, for example, the government decides to declare a historic place near someone's property. Then it says the windmill on the property is taking away from the historic place, and that person needs to take the windmill down or the government needs a chunk of that person's land. What are the rules regarding that? What is going to restrain the minister's power? Someone might say that is overreaching, except the government does not have a good track record of collaborating. The government does not have a good track record of ensuring that it does not overreach. I can go on about the challenges of the minister having power over lands adjoining or incidental to historic places. Have the Liberals defined what “incidental” means? I think we all understand what “adjoining” means, but have they defined what “incidental” means? Of course they have not. Why have they done it? Why have they included language like this in a bill that they say everyone should support? It is sloppy drafting. It is trying to put way too much into the bill that should not be in it. There are other powers in this bill that were not mentioned in the member's speech and have not been discussed. There are new offences created under this act, and if a person is convicted under this act, the court could order the seizure of an item or property. Let us think back to my example of the Trent-Severn. If they say someone cannot operate on the Trent-Severn, then someone who has a cottage there decides they need to get in their boat to go to the grocery store, because those exist, then they could be charged and the boat could be seized. That is a problem, but wait, there is more. They are also setting up the historic places protection fund. Where is the funding for that going to come from? It is also not clear in the bill if the proceeds of seizures will go into the historic places protection fund. We can think of the conflict of interest that exists if the government says the more things we seize, the more money we have in the fund. We know the government likes to tax everything, whether it is the escalator tax on alcohol or whether it is tripling the carbon tax. The government is addicted to tax and addicted to revenue. If there is an incentive in this bill for the government to seize property or personal property and use those proceeds, then we have to be very concerned that it is exactly what it is going to do. This bill, I agree, should be supported and it should go to committee, but the committee needs to do the really hard work of looking at what exactly is in this bill. I am hopeful that I have illustrated just some of the concerns I have with this legislation, and that the committee will take those concerns very seriously and find ways to rein in the power of the minister that is unconstrained now, to define what “incidental” means and to make it clear that the proceeds from seizing things are not going into this fund. Those are my concerns.
1443 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border