44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 2, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I was just talking about the National Capital Commission, or NCC. It spent six months working with the current hospital and stakeholders to develop a set of criteria. They evaluated 12 sites and came up with a 53-acre site that included surplus federal buildings at Tunney's Pasture.
The City of Ottawa appeared ready to accept this proposal, but instead it did a 180, without an environmental, transportation and health impact study. The City of Ottawa prefers the Central Experimental Farm site, from which it has already appropriated 40 acres, and the pristine nature of the 13 acres appropriated from the beautiful Queen Juliana Park, a memorial site honouring the more than 7,000 Canadian soldiers who lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy during the Second World War.
The sudden change of site to the Central Experimental Farm meant that building lots worth $3 billion to $4 billion became available on the site offered by the NCC. The rush of developers and the property taxes promised to the city immediately jump to mind.
More than 10,000 people signed a petition to demand the cancellation of construction permits for the hospital and obtain a response from the City of Ottawa, but to no avail. No forest should be cut down to make room for a hospital. Urban green space is essential for people's health and well-being.
The NCC rejected the Central Experimental Farm as a site for a new hospital in its 2016 report that was more than 240 pages long. The following year it asked that the farm be left intact. The 2016 report said, and I quote, “there are multiple heritage considerations, including intrusion into the present boundary of the CEF National Historic Site and proximity to the Rideau Canal UNESCO World Heritage Site and several Federal Heritage Buildings.”
The hospital apparently claimed needing 28 acres of land and more than 3,500 parking spots, which would require 500 trees to be felled on the Sir John Carling site. In an open letter to the NCC two Ottawa experts said, “Hundreds of trees will need to be cut down. Yes, we counted but we stopped at 500!”
During the consultations in 2016 for construction of the new hospital, Parks Canada pointed out that the Historic Sites and Monuments Board had designated the farm as a national historic site and emphasized its place in the cultural landscape. The agency also indicated that this heritage designation is comprehensive and universal. It applies not only to the heritage buildings, but also to the more utilitarian buildings that support them, the ornamental gardens and other landscaped grounds, and the outdoor research fields.
The NCC looked into its crystal ball and planned ahead until 2067. It had this to say in a 2017 report: “In 2067, the national institutions will...represent Canada and Canadians to the world, and contribute significantly to the identity, pride and signature of the Capital.... The Central Experimental Farm, established in 1886, is a unique working farm in the heart of an urban region. The Experimental Farm is open to the public throughout the year, along with the adjacent 26-hectare Arboretum.”
Here is another quote: “This central asset of the Capital's urban green space network contributes to biodiversity and reinforces the link from the Rideau Canal to the Ottawa River ecosystems.”
I have not even touched on the symbolism of Queen Juliana Park, or what the site means to the Anishinabe and Algonquin indigenous people who celebrate many festive activities central to their identity. How is that for reconciliation? Did the sponsor of Bill C‑23 know that communities had asked to be heard by federal authorities on this bill but were never properly received?
The Central Experimental Farm was designated as a historic site in 1998, but that designation is meaningless because the government decided to pass the property on to the Ottawa Civic Hospital when it could have shown some integrity and acted in a manner consistent with its own narrative and regulations. Perhaps the government is proposing a weaker, more malleable law with provisions that can be secretly revoked in accordance with the political demands of provincial or municipal governments by using empty words and concepts.
How did we get to this point? How is it possible that Canadian Heritage, a proper department responsible for protecting national historic sites, ignored the NCC's recommendation to build the new campus at Tunney's Pasture?
That recommendation was based on public consultation and multiple studies. There is no need to ask me whether I support Canadian heritage, because that is not what I am talking about.
Here is an example that illustrates the following. It is all well and good for the government to sing the praises of its plan to save biodiversity and green spaces with the much-talked-about goal of protecting 30% by 2030. It is all well and good for government members to talk about reconciliation, sometimes even with a tear in their eye and to introduce bills that are supposed to protect, strengthen, support, integrate, repair and consolidate. However, as we can see from the examples of the Central Experimental Farm and Queen Juliana Park, Canadian Heritage is pandering on this issue.
This shows that we must always ask cui bono, or who stands to gain? We are witnessing some fine art, the art of subterfuge and deception.
916 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I hear the passion in my colleague's intervention. I have had the chance to visit many historic sites within the province of Quebec, and I heard her say that the Bloc will be supporting this legislation, which would give us much-needed protections.
I really would like to commend the member for using the Central Experimental Farm as an example. There has been huge controversy over this and huge impacts related to a national historic site. I would like the member's further thoughts on the mechanisms within Bill C-23 that would help prevent those types of scenarios in the future, to make sure that we do not lose the commemorative integrity of national historic sites, not only in Ottawa or Quebec, but in places across Canada. If the member could expand on how Bill C-23 would help with that, I would greatly appreciate it.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
I asked him a question this morning after his speech and I will pick up where we left off. Yes, there has been progress. There is going to be a public registry, there are going to be clear guidelines for changes, experts will be consulted and there will even be possible fines.
However, when we read Bill C‑23, we wonder if it is enough. When a developer arrives with money, with the possibility of paying millions of dollars in property taxes, what will be left of this? The NCC ended up folding and fell for the madness of the Central Experimental Farm situation. Will Bill C‑23 be strong enough? That is the question we have, but the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I am going to ask the member about the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's report in 2017, which clearly outlines a framework for implementing the importance of recognizing indigenous heritage. I wonder if the member agrees that more needs to be done to ensure that indigenous heritage is also protected in this bill.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
When indigenous heritage started to be recognized, that was an important step. It is super important to conserve indigenous heritage and conserve all heritage. In his speech this morning, the member said that history should never be forgotten. We subscribe to that philosophy. Whether for indigenous peoples or for others, history must never be forgotten and we must protect heritage.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows the Bloc Québécois is proud that its purpose here is not to oppose, but to propose. I would like my colleague to comment on proposals she would like to see the committee debate when it studies this bill if passed at second reading.
Once this bill passes second reading, what would she like the committee to debate? Are there any amendments or improvements that come to mind?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
Yes, we do have some suggestions. This is good because I am a member of the committee that will be studying the bill. What we really want to see is some assurance that the integrity of historic sites will be preserved as much as possible. That is what matters. We have to make sure nobody can give in to developers.
This might be an opportunity to create an urban park. Recently, the committee heard that Parks Canada would like to create urban parks. Why not? We want to make absolutely sure that developers cannot take over bits and pieces of sites. Right now, proponents are coming forward, and the rules are inconsistent. As things stand, these people can chip away at everything. We want to make sure everything is watertight so that can no longer happen either on land or at sea.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying what an honour it is to speak after my colleague from Repentigny, who shines every time she speaks. She humbles us. She makes us realize how much more work we have to do and that there is still a long way to go. I congratulate her on her speech and thank her for sharing her time with me.
I want to say that it is also a privilege for me to deliver my first speech before you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished among the distinguished.
I am also pleased to speak to Bill C‑23, which touches on a subject that interests me greatly and that concerns me. It deals with heritage, heritage protection and heritage preservation. First and foremost, and we will come back to this because it is perhaps a little lacking, it talks about the recognition of heritage.
Bill C‑23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage, encompasses many things.
Real concerns pertaining to this issue of preserving cultural heritage are emerging and drawing attention around the world. Earlier this fall, in late September, I had the opportunity to take part in Mondiacult, UNESCO's major conference on culture. I took the opportunity to invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage and some other colleagues—or maybe it was the other way around, I do not remember exactly who invited whom. In any case, Mondiacult was a fantastic conference, bringing together 150 countries that unanimously signed a declaration. One of the things the declaration said was that the text adopted by the states defines a set of cultural rights that should be taken into account in public policies—and this is very important—ranging from the social and economic rights of artists, to artistic freedom, to the right of indigenous communities to safeguard and transmit their ancestral knowledge, and to the protection and promotion of cultural and natural heritage.
My colleague from Repentigny, whose praises I sang earlier, said herself that recognizing indigenous heritage is a first step. I am quite happy to see that Bill C-23 takes that step. I hope that this step will lead to others, because we still have a long way to go.
I must also recognize the work done leading up to Mondiacult, this huge UNESCO conference I was talking about. There were months of preparation by the officials of all these countries, organizations and stakeholders from different sectors related to culture. A lot of preparation was done and it was clearly a great success because the declaration was adopted unanimously in the end. A few months later, we have before us this bill, which includes themes that were highlighted at this major Mondiacult conference. We can say for once that the government is walking the talk. I want to recognize that.
Clearly, UNESCO's commitment was motivated by the urgency to protect vulnerable heritage. There was an awakening as a result of the many conflicts around the world over the past few years, and also terrorism, as well as wars like the one we are seeing with Russian aggression in Ukraine. There was a realization that special attention must be paid to certain heritage treasures that have become extremely vulnerable as a result of these conflicts.
I am talking about conflicts, but we can also talk about climate change, another topic that is very important to my colleague from Repentigny. Many of these historic sites that are global heritage treasures are at serious risk because of climate change. There has been a heightened awareness of this over the past few years. People have realized that if we do not take action, if we do not do anything about this, we are going to lose them when they could have been saved if we had done more sooner.
Obviously, this realization uncovered a host of factors that reveal that our cultural and heritage properties are in jeopardy. One of these factors is trafficking. There is an appetite for smugglers, for dishonest people. What is more, there is a clientele for this, which is rather sad. Just recently, nine artefacts from Petra, Jordan, were recovered. Some of them were from the neolithic era. These are priceless items.
One would think that smugglers went to Jordan to steal those artifacts and then sold them to collectors of illicit, illegal and rare objects. One would also think that such things really only happen in a few banana republics or in some kind of dictatorship, but that is not at all the case. These artifacts were found in the United States.
That is something that caught the attention of stakeholders at the conference and study days that took place in Mexico. The question was asked what could be done, as a country, to combat this problem, and the desire to do so was there. Once again, I think that Bill C‑23 is a small step toward finding a solution to protect our heritage properties and historic treasures.
Bill C‑23 meets the expectations of indigenous nations as formulated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It proposes a new Historic Sites and Monuments Act, 1985. I like that. It also proposes to restructure the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada by clarifying powers that are still symbolic and clarifying the ability to legislate on offences committed in various national parks. I also think that is a good step forward.
It will come as no surprise to anyone that Quebec is ahead of the curve when it comes to heritage protection. Indeed, in Quebec, heritage buildings are protected by the cultural property act and are listed in the Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec. Municipalities play a role in protecting heritage as well. This means that Quebec has given itself the means to protect heritage properties and monuments, not just to designate them as such.
Meanwhile, in Ottawa, they receive a designation, they are recognized, they receive some protection from a few rules, but it seems to me that we could put a little more teeth into how we take action.
Things are not perfect in Quebec. That is why I say that we must not let our guard down. Often, people still have to be militant and protest against the possible demolition of an old heritage house because, even though it may be magnificent, the owners do not have the means or the resources to maintain it.
I will make another aside. Members may call me “Mr. Aside” if they want, because that seems to be a habit with me.
I remember some extremely interesting conversations I had with Robert Julien, the mayor of Saint‑Guillaume in the riding of Drummond. He cares deeply about preserving Quebec's villages. I know this happens across Canada, but, in Quebec, there is a distinct identity associated with villages. It is all about the old houses, the streets, the way these villages are built. Mr. Julien says that protecting a building is all well and good, but that we also have to protect the integrity of these villages because they tell the story of our past.
This is not something we do naturally. We are not in the habit. It is not in our nature to communicate, to bear witness, to share knowledge of our history and our heritage and to pass it on to future generations. It is something we have to learn to do, and we are, gradually. We designate commemorative days, days set aside for remembering this, that or the other thing. We remember that we have to remember, so we do, and then we move on. Those days need to mean something. We have to find other ways to convey that awareness of our heritage, of our historic places and monuments. That happens through education, through teaching, through sharing our history. We have to get our children interested and we have to get future generations interested in the importance of preserving these remnants of our past.
Let me share a short anecdote. I went to summer camp when I was young. At the camp, there was a Native American totem pole. The totem pole had obviously been carved into by young campers over the years. The camp got a new director who was outraged by this, and rightly so. Instead of lecturing the kids, instead of punishing them and trying to protect the totem pole, he brought in an elder from an indigenous community. He was from a Huron-Wendat nation, I remember. He came and told the kids at the camp about the significance of first nations history and the ways first nations shared their history. The totem pole, which is actually a tradition that comes more from nations in western Canada, is one such way. I looked into it again a few years ago and spoke with the camp director. He told me that from then on, every year, he invited an elder from a first nation—it was the same one for several years—to come and speak to the kids. The totem pole has never been vandalized since.
It is by communicating, educating and teaching that we will one day have heritage assets that will have the respect and reverence they deserve.
1570 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Drummond for his very interesting speech.
I would like him to tell us about the financial aspect of protecting different sites. It is one thing to designate them, but they must then be looked after, maintained, improved and preserved, and the problem is that, often, there is not enough money for that.
Would my colleague like to take a closer look at this issue when the bill is studied in committee after second reading stage?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint‑Jean for her brilliant question, once again.
I think we must give ourselves the means to match our ambitions. If we decide that it is important to preserve heritage assets and places, we must provide the means to do so properly. How will this be done? Will this require a better education program, as I was proposing?
I am not necessarily speaking about teaching in schools, but that would be a great place to start. We will definitely need to inject money into these programs to ensure that our efforts to preserve and protect these sites continue to improve.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I recognize this legislation as something that means a great deal to Canadians, because we value our heritage. When we think of historical markers, we reflect on our heritage. There is so much we need to appreciate. Even though this legislation might not address all aspects of our national symbols and sites, it is a very strong, positive step forward.
Can my colleague provide his thoughts on how important it is to have a rich understanding of our heritage?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his question. I think he should remember today as the day when I agreed with him almost all across the board.
Yes, it is a good step forward. Yes, it is an important bill for heritage preservation. Yes, we have some absolutely fantastic sites in Quebec and Canada. There are many places, monuments and buildings that are worthy of our attention and worth taking care of and protecting in any way possible. It is a good step forward.
Is there work that needs to be done to improve this bill? Yes, of course. I think there is room for improvement in every bill. When the bill is examined in committee, we will have the opportunity to discuss it with various stakeholders and experts. I think that we have something worthwhile and important here, and we will be ready and willing to make it even better, if that is possible.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech on the management of historic sites in Canada. We have a federal government that is having a lot of trouble these days just providing basic services to its citizens. Immigration and passports are a couple of examples, as is control of our border with the United States.
What would my colleague think about a new bureaucracy being created to manage historic sites? Would there be benefits to it?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always too far for people who are going nowhere. That is a well-known fact.
Yes, there are many shortcomings that the Conservatives and the Bloc try to point out. Just look at passport management, border management, immigration management. It is an utter failure.
Does that mean that we should do nothing for other things that are just as important in the long term for our history?
I think that the creation of an organization that will ensure the protection of our monuments, places, sites and historical heritage deserves our attention, despite the problems that currently exist in the system.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I realize that the member did not speak much to indigenous issues, but I will ask this question quickly.
Can the member speak to his party's experience with first nations, Inuit and Métis communities and the ongoing efforts or struggles they have with preserving and protecting indigenous heritage?
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/2/22 1:02:15 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Drummond has 20 seconds for a brief response.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have 20 seconds to answer a question that I would like to spend 20 minutes on, but I will try to be quick.
I would say this to my hon. colleague: I think it is time for this government and all governments to withdraw from issues that pertain only to indigenous nations. Indigenous nations should be given the means to preserve their heritage, which is very important.
I always hesitate to enter into this debate because I think that we have no business doing this. The first peoples, the first nations, should be given the authority, the responsibility and the resources they need to protect their heritage.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will receive unanimous consent for me to split my time this afternoon.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/2/22 1:03:10 p.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie): The hon. member has the floor.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nunavut.
I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-23, the historic places of Canada act, which will modernize the Historic Sites and Monuments Act. In short, this new act will update the protection and conservation framework for historic places and give indigenous people a role in determining those places.
Canadians value our heritage places and the role they play in our collective history and culture, but for most of Canadian history, the history of indigenous peoples has almost been entirely absent from our historic sites and monuments. This bill takes a first step to include indigenous peoples in the designation and development of those sites.
While the member for Nunavut will expand more fully on this issue, I would like to bring up two examples of important indigenous sites from my riding that illustrate this.
There are two provincial parks in the South Okanagan that are popular camping spots but also happen to be important cultural sites for the Syilx people.
Unlike most non-indigenous historic sites, these sites do not have a building to mark them but have been important gathering places for millennia.
One is sẁiẁs Provincial Park. It is a beautiful narrow peninsula that almost cuts the Osoyoos Lake in two. The nsyilxcən name means a shallow place where one can cross the lake on foot or by horse.
The name sẁiẁs was altered by the first settler justice of the peace, Judge Haynes, to Osoyoos, and that has become the name of the local town and of the lake.
Legend has it that Judge Haynes added the “o” in front of the name because of his Irish heritage.
Ironically, the long peninsula took on the name Haynes Point and then became Haynes Point Provincial Park. In 2015, the name of the park was changed to sẁiẁs Provincial Park, and the park is now managed and operated by the Osoyoos Indian Band.
A similar situation is found a little further north, at Okanagan Falls. This site, at a rocky rapids where the Okanagan River flows out of Skaha Lake, has been a sacred gathering site for the Syilx people for thousands of years, as it was a place where sockeye and chinook salmon were caught as they swam upstream to spawn.
Like sẁiẁs Park, which I mentioned previously, this became a provincial park, called Okanagan Falls Provincial Park, but in 2015 it too was renamed, and it has since been managed by the Osoyoos Indian Band as well. It is now known by the nsyilxcən name sx̌ʷəx̌ʷnitkʷ Provincial Park, and that name means “little falls”. That signifies a connection to Kettle Falls, in Washington state, on the Kettle River.
The nsyilxcən name for Kettle Falls is sx̌ʷnitkʷ, which means “big falls”. These two falls were two of the most important fishing sites for the Okanagan Nation's traditional territory.
Kettle Falls was flooded by the Grand Coulee Dam almost a century ago, and while that was done in the United States, it reflects the complete disregard for sites that were critically important to indigenous people in the settler development of North America.
The campsite at sx̌ʷəx̌ʷnitkʷ Provincial Park is closed annually on the third weekend of September for the Okanagan Nation Alliance's Salmon Feast. The event raises awareness of Okanagan history and culture, as well as the Okanagan Nation's effort to revitalize and restore sockeye salmon numbers in the Okanagan River.
Everyone is welcome to attend the celebration, and I heartily recommend it. It is a wonderful celebration.
There is one official national historic site in my riding, and that is the Rossland Miners' Union Hall. This building was opened in 1898 at the height of the mining boom in West Kootenay. Local miners had created the first Canadian local of the Western Federation of Miners in 1895, and each donated a day's pay to create the hall.
That local went on to advance many of the first labour laws in British Columbia and Canada, laws that brought in the five-day workweek, the eight-hour workday and laws enforcing safe workplaces and the first workers' compensation act.
Continued unrest in the mining camps after the hall was built resulted in the Canadian government's sending Roger Clute, a prominent Toronto lawyer, to Rossland in 1899. He reported back that compulsory arbitration would be less effective than conciliatory measures and, after another trip to Rossland, his reports led to the federal Conciliation Act of 1900, which helped create the Department of Labour and the Canadian system of industrial relations.
Rossland helped build our system of labour relations across the country, and the miners' hall was at the centre of that activity. It is even rumoured that Joe Hill, the legendary labour activist from the United States, lived in the attic of the hall while hiding out from American authorities, so the Rossland Union Miners' Hall can be truly held up as one of the most important historic sites in Canada, and it still plays an important role in the community life of Rossland and the surrounding areas.
It fell into disuse after the mines closed in the late 1920s, and it needed a lot of renovations to bring it back to light. More recent renovations began in 2015, and initial attempts to find federal funding to aid in that were unsuccessful, though I am happy to report that the most recent renovations received funding from all levels of government. In 2020, the Rossland miners' hall was designated a national historic site, and I was very happy to be there for that ceremony.
I wanted to tell the story of the miners' hall to make it clear that these historic sites need ongoing maintenance and renovations, and the sites that are not owned by the federal government, like the miners' hall, need this just as much as those that are.
In 2017, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development recommended that the annual federal cost-sharing funding for historic sites be increased to a minimum of $10 million annually, but only $2 million is available for the next cycle. In 2018, the Auditor General reported that no resources are allocated to new national historic sites, and that these precious resources are literally falling apart. We need to do better to maintain the heritage that Canadians cherish.
I would like to finish with one more example of an historic place in Canada that as yet has no federal designation or protection, and that is the SS Sicamous in Penticton. The SS Sicamous is a historic paddlewheeler steamship that plied Okanagan Lake in the early 1900s, providing a vital link up and down the valley before roads were built. It is permanently docked at Penticton, along with the stern saloon of the SS Okanagan, an earlier vessel that actually brought my grandparents down the lake when they immigrated from England to Canada in 1910. This marine history park has also added the SS Naramata, an old steam tug, and another historic CPR diesel tug that pushed train barges on Okanagan Lake early in my lifetime.
These historic ships are a big part of the historic heritage of our country and deserve national designation. Like the situation with the Rossland miners' hall, maintenance and renovation of these ships is very expensive. There is a large, very talented and enthusiastic group of volunteers who work on them every day, but they need the funding for materials to help with their work.
This bill is long overdue, and the NDP will be supporting it, but we need to do more to ensure that indigenous voices and indigenous sites take their rightful place in our national historic places. We need to ensure that adequate funding is available to save these precious places for the future generations of Canada.
1362 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
