June 6, 1977

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT

LIB

Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Businesses))

Liberal

Hon. Len Marchand (for Mr. Allmand) moved

that Bill C-13, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be concurred in.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


LIB

James Alexander Jerome (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Businesses))

Liberal

Mr. Marchand (for Mr. Allmand) moved

that the bill be read the third time and do pass.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
LIB

B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Liberal

Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand), I am pleased to make a few brief remarks on the third reading stage of this legislation, which is not a very complicated bill. Nevertheless, it is an important bill. It is not complicated in that it only seeks to do one simple thing, which is to add two more members to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. That is simple, but it is important because those representatives will come from the two territories-the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory.

In the course of considering Bill C-13 there have been interesting debates at both second reading stage and when this bill was before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When this bill came forward for debate, many members took the opportunity to talk about historic sites or persons within their own constituencies. Thus, we had an interesting cross-section sampling of Canadiana during the course of this debate.

It was said that we ought to be doing more in the House of Commons to make ourselves aware and to inform the citizens of this country about the very colourful and dramatic history which we have as a nation. Bill C-13 gave members an opportunity to refer to some of the fascinating historic events

which have taken place within their ridings, and whether they were or were not properly designated. Where there has been such an important historic event within a province, region or constituency, members would like to have it properly marked in one way or another. That is the function of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. It is always pleased to hear from members of parliament or from other Canadians concerning historic sites or historic personages which ought to be appropriately recognized through the work and functioning of this board.

The Historic Sites and Monuments Act provides that the board bearing the same name recommend to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development places, events and persons of historical significance to our country. This board has been functioning since the time of its establishment in 1919. Presently, the board is composed of 15 members, two representatives each from Ontario and Quebec and one each from the other eight provinces. As well, there is one representative from the National Museums of Canada and the Dominion Archivist, and also an officer from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, a position which happens to be vacant at the moment. The provincial representatives are usually historians or archivists of some repute. Mr. Marc Laterreur is the chairman of the board. He is also a member of the Department of History of the Faculte des Lettres of Laval University in Quebec.

In the past 20 years, on the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, more than 70 historic parks and major sites have been designated, and almost 700 persons and events of historical significance have been commemorated. Those statistics speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker. Some people may believe, if they are not as aware of the history of our nation as they ought to be, that not much has happened in our past that is of significance or import. In fact, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, through their work, has proven this to the contrary. There is a great deal in our history which is worthy of recognition. The board which examines these requests has come up with a significant number in the past 20 years: as I said, more than 70 historic parks and major sites have been designated, and almost 700 persons and events of historical significance have been commemorated.

The purpose of amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act is to have better representation of two important parts of Canada-the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Up until now, representatives from these northern regions have attended board meetings only as observers, without the right to vote. The fact that there will now be representatives from the two territories sitting on the board is indicative of the government's

June 6, 1977

Historic Sites

policy to more and more recognize the place and the role of the territories in our federal system.

There is an evolution of government going on within the territories. In its own small way, this bill helps to recognize that. If this bill is adopted it will have delegates from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. They will no longer simply voice their opinions or be there in an advisory capacity. They will have all the rights and privileges which the other members of the board have. The board will then have 17 members instead of the present 15.

In the eyes of all the people of Canada, the north, with all its human, cultural and natural resources, is becoming increasingly important. Therefore, I believe that the members of this House will approve a measure which ensures the participation of these vast regions of Canada on this important board.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
PC

Walter David Baker (Official Opposition House Leader; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the speech of the parliamentary secretary. I do not intend to unduly delay the passage of this bill. I regard this as a very significant event. The House is about to approve the addition of two more members to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. They will represent the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. These two areas are frontier areas of our country, and are very much in the minds of all Canadians as we wrestle with the question of the approach to be taken to their development. All members are aware of the problems of development there and the importance of those areas to Canada. So I think this is a sound bill and one worthy of support, particularly in view of the status it will give to the representatives of those areas, a status equal to that of representatives of other parts of Canada which are in a different state of constitutional development.

The parliamentary secretary said the debate on second reading had given parliament-and, I hope, those who read Hansard-a cross-section of Canadiana. That is an excellent description. Canadians everywhere should be mindful of the work of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. It has been going on for a number of years. In my own area of Grenville-Carleton, an historic area of the province of Ontario, many sites have been designated. Since 1 came here in 1972 I have dealt with that board and with those who work with it and with the historical societies which work in such close co-operation with the board, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the board and those who work with it are to be commended for the help they have been giving to those within the area I represent and who have been interested in the preservation and the memorializing of our history and of the great events of our times.

I have the honour to be the honorary president of the Grenville County Historical Society which has co-operated completely with the board in terms of designating sites in Grenville county. There has recently been formed a Rideau Township Historical Society which with the work of the interested people of Merrickville is in the process of adding to

the lore of what is old Carleton county bordering on the Rideau River. The use of that river as a highway is a story in itself as exciting as anyone could imagine. Recently, an Osgoode Township Historical Society was formed. Osgoode township is an agricultural area of great significance in terms of the pioneer families who settled there; it makes one proud to be associated in any way with that area. This evening, in the township hall in Goulbourn township, they are forming a new society called the Goulbourn township historical society which will cover the old capital of Carleton county, Richmond, Ontario, where Colonel By, who participated so greatly in the development of this area, met his death.

We have in Prescott, Fort Wellington, a magnificent site marking the relationship between Canada and the United States when it was not quite as happy as it is today. There are stories in my part of Ontario, and I am sure each member of the House could find stories-as the parliamentary secretary has said-as interesting as any. L young Canadians want to look to an exciting past, let them look to the past of this country. If there is to be an understanding between the various regions of Canada and the various cultural groups in Canada, I think this kind of preservation and memorializing is more significant than we are sometimes prepared to admit.

We have a lot of difficulties in Canada now. We have misunderstanding-perhaps lack of understanding-from place to place, and I think we can begin the job of erasing these differences by understanding and having a feeling for the roots from which we have sprung and the events in our nation's development which have affected us. If that is the object of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board-and I am sure that is part of it-it should be supported by all Canadians.

I am very pleased to speak for this short period in the debate. I think we should not lose sight of the fact that sitting in this chamber we have a member of parliament who is himself a national historic site. I am speaking of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
PC

Walter David Baker (Official Opposition House Leader; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):

He happens to be a neighbour of mine. He has made a great contribution to parliament. 1 would not want this occasion to pass without reminding hon. members that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is today in the United Kingdom with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) preparing to attend the jubilee celebrations of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. He has become a legend in this own time. He became a legend because he brought his tremendous powers of oratory and his great powers of perception to the defence of the little man. He had, and has, a view of this country which can only be described as sweeping.

It is important that the House know that what he regards as one of his greatest contributions, namely, placing upon the statute books the Canadian Bill of Rights, will be memorialized in this place by the affixing to the walls of the Parliament Buildings a bronze replica of his bill of rights. 1 think we could do with a little more of that around here. There was the union

June 6, 1977

of the areas of Canada in 1867. Many men and women before and after that date made a contribution to our country which we ought not to forget and which we ought to be prepared to recognize by the setting up of suitable memorials in these parliamentary buildings.

Lastly, though education is not within the jurisdiction of the government of Canada, most of us are interested in the educational systems of the provinces and the territories from which we come. 1 hope there will always be an effort by those in charge of the programs to educate young people to pay particular attention to the exciting history of Canada, the development and evolution of its political institutions and the contributions'made by its men and women great and small. They are as much a part of the fabric of our nation as the concrete and steel that we see above us now as our country develops. In closing 1 want to say that 1 am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on what I regard as a very important subject.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
PC

Steve Eugene Paproski (Chief Opposition Whip; Whip of the Progressive Conservative Party)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Paproski:

And here is our historic site!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) told the House that he was an honorary president of an historical society, I was tempted to interrupt him to say that he is not old enough. I wish 1 had done so, so that I could now say I am not old enough to be an historic site. When the reference was made, my good friend, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said, "I can just see the pigeons flying over you".

The parliamentary secretary his indicated that we had a very good debate on this bill at second reading and that the committee also had an interesting time with it. Our hope is that the Historic Sites and Monument Board will pay some attention to the many suggestions that were made during the course of that debate. But I agree with him and with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, that it is not necessary for us to continue that sort of debate now that we have reached third reading.

There is, however, one reference that I would like to make to the committee. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) will agree with me that the committee did something that was quite historic. It made a very slight amendment to the bill, as the House sent it to the committee, that deals with an issue that is very much with us. The bill, as it was sent to committee, contained a subclause that read in these terms:

A person is not eligible to be appointed or to continue as a representative for a province or a territory unless he resides in that province or territory.

The committee amended it so that it now reads:

A person is not eligible to be appointed or to continue as a representative for a province or territory unless such person resides in that province or territory.

As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and some others of us frequently point out, the word "he" and the word "him" seem to appear throughout our statutes. We are asked

Historic Sites

to operate under the umbrella of the Interpretation Act which says that the masculine includes the feminine. I hope that this is a beginning that can be carried through and that our statutes generally can reflect much more equality between men and women than they do at present.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

As I have already indicated, it is not necessary, in my view, for us to repeat the suggestions that were made at an earlier stage, but I have an additional one that I should like to make and 1 am encouraged to make it by the references of the previous speaker. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton referred to known events in history and to persons who might be outstanding in the sense that their names are well known. These are the events and persons who are usually honoured. But I was disturbed a while ago when it came to my attention that a certain request for consideration by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board was turned down, and I would like to mention it briefly.

This is not something that many people will know about. There is a group known as the Parkland Ukrainian Pioneer Association located near Rossburn which is probably in the constituency of my friend, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart). People in that area are very conscious of the struggles, the sacrifices and the suffering of their forebears, most of whom in that area were Ukrainians. There is one particular spot in that constituency where there is a mass grave of Ukrainian mothers, children and some fathers who simply perished because of the rigours and the suffering that they went through in the early days.

People in that community think a great deal of that part of their heritage. Their names are unsung, but it seems to me that there is a place for this kind of thing also being remembered by our Historic Sites and Monument Board. Let us not get carried away with the fact that the only events worth remembering are wars, battles, and so on. Let us not get carried away with the idea that we must forever put up plaques or monuments to persons whose names are down in history anyway. This country has been made what it is by a lot of little, ordinary people, and 1 think that this request that something be done to mark that mass grave of Ukrainian pioneers who, by their sacrifices, helped to get those people settled in western Manitoba is one that should be considered.

Somehow or other it was shunted from the Historic Sites and Monument Board to the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism (Mr. Guay), I suppose because they were Ukrainians. Mr. Speaker, they were Canadians, and this is part of our heritage. I hope that this sort of thing will be reviewed. I ask the board to look at this particular case. But even more, I make the point that as time goes on I hope we will remember not only the well known names but the names of the little people by the hundreds and thousands who have made this country what it is.

I want to keep my word to the effect that I do not think we need to extend this debate, but we are glad to have this opportunity to endorse what the Historic Sites and Monument

June 6, 1977

Historic Sites

Board is doing and to say that anything that we can do to show our pride in our heritage is a good act on our part.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
PC

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):

Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few thoughts also, but with no regrets at extending the debate for the next few minutes. I know that the House is disposed to move this bill along and it has proceeded with a good deal of the examination of it in committee. But since the bill involves the Historic Sites and Monument Act, it also involves the whole perception of Canadian history, and like other speakers who have taken part in the debate on this bill I believe that the bill involves our history and how it is taught in our schools, which has been a pet subject of mine.

The teaching of history in our schools is not even required in some school curricula, which is a most retrograde and unfortunate situation. A student is able to go through the whole school system, at both elementary and secondary school levels, and graduate from grade 11, 12, or 13 in this province having had no real exposure to our vibrant history, the history of our country which is just as exciting and dynamic as the history of the country to the south of us. Quite understandably, we are preoccupied with Canadian culture and we have set up CRTC to define Canadian content so that we know what a Canadian is and so that when we see ourselves in the mirror we are able to recognize ourselves and find out who the devil we are.

Having been exposed to education, not as a teacher but as a member of a school board, and then having been privileged to be chairman of a school board in the west, it has never ceased to amaze me how little the Canadian student is exposed to the vital history of this land. Were he exposed more to it, it would give him some pride, in light of some of the problems which we have in this country at present. Maintaining Canadian content in our programs and trying to instil pride in our history, almost after the event, may be fine; but for it to be taught properly in the schools is much more important. A great deal of the legislation we deal with in the House involving Canadian culture is pump-priming and band-aid procedure. It does not get to the fundamentals which must be taught in our schools.

Today I flew in from Nova Scotia and walked into the House as the bells were ringing this morning. This weekend we were involved in the apple blossom festival with the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) gracing the parade by being the parade marshal and participating in a unity breakfast in which I also participated. 1 think it was the minister's first venture into the Annapolis Valley. Perhaps that is why I was interested in seeing this bill come forward today and hearing the parliamentary secretary's explanation.

I am sorry that I did not participate in the committee, because I certainly would have got into a more detailed examination of some projects in my riding. The House may be aware that my riding is Annapolis Valley, and I am being quite modest when I say it is literally the cradle of a European civilization in North America. It has the oldest continuous settlement which is still in existence. That settlement dates back to 1604. Because I was exposed to some of this over the

weekend I am glad to have the opportunity to make these remarks.

It was a fellow called Joseph Howe, a tremendous Nova Scotian, who said something like this, "A nation which does not preserve its monuments starts to lose its soul". Considering statements such as that of over one hundred years ago, in the present context I wonder if this is not one of the reasons we try to define what our soul is. We have not paid enough attention to this. There is more than stale, dusty history; Our history is vital and active.

I do not know how many students in our country know some of the interesting things about our prime ministers. No prime minister has not had some facet of private or personal life which was just as fascinating as anything that happens south of the border. We all know the attributes of Sir John. A. Macdonald. Few realize that he had a daughter who was very retarded and sick. He used to walk from this House of Commons every night to what is now the British high commission, his former home, to read to her during the supper hour. Perhaps it was as a result of her affliction and other tragedies regarding his son that Sir John A. Macdonald became a great gourmet of certain liquids. However, he was a great parliamentarian.

The fact that the home of the first prime minister of this land no longer belongs to Canada is testimony to the fact of how retarded we have been as a country. It is now the site of the British high commission. It was a beautiful house, and it still stands. I do not know if the history of that house is pointed out by guided tours. This would never happen in the United States-but it happens in Canada all the time.

The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) is not in the chamber now, but he has been a consistent spokesman for those who want to have a federal government and the provincial governments recognize some of our historic sites. Three miles from me in my riding there was once the home of one of our prime ministers, Sir Robert Borden, but that house has been torn down. It was an original American planner home. Now the site is barren: there are now just trees and shrubs; the house is not there. At the intersection of Grand Pre there is a little plaque saying that down the road half a mile is where the house once was. When I was knee high to a grasshopper I attended the unveiling of that plaque. Henry Borden, of Brazilian extraction and a descendant of Sir Robert Borden, pulled back the veil; but even at that time, if my memory serves me correctly, the original home was still in existence.

I do not want to take up too much time, but I want to repeat what Joseph Howe said, "A nation which does not preserve its monuments starts to lose its soul". The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) once said in a speech-and I have used this at every school at which I have spoken-that the man who does not know his history is the same as a person in the hospital who has amnesia. We do not have to become slaves of the past, but certainly an awareness of the past would help define and chart the course for the future.

June 6, 1977

I am not going to discuss all the areas of concern in my riding. I am proud to be a member of parliament because we are dealing with a bill which extends and enlarges the Historic Sites and Monuments Board by adding to it representatives from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Less than two weeks ago I happened to be in the Yukon for the first time. I was 300 miles north of Whitehorse, at the westernmost settlement in Canada. That part of the country reeks with history. That history basically has to do with the gold rush. But history is also taking place today because now we have the Lysyk commission studying the Alcan pipeline route. This is a kind of marriage of the old with the new. We should try to achieve the proper blend of the new with the old.

I became interested in the Yukon and some of its history because, quite frankly, I did not know very much about it. There is a tremendous book entitled "Prelude to Bonanza", written by a well known citizen of Whitehorse, Allen Wright, which points out that long before the gold rush there was quite an active history and quite a lot of development by the Americans and the French in this most westerly region of Canada.

There is one specific matter which 1 want to mention. There has been a repeated request by the West Hants county historical society. I would like to pay credit to at least one individual involved with that society, Mr. Roland Meuse, its president, who has helped inform me and who has brought to my attention in a most constructive and consistent way various matters of concern to his society. One request of this historical society is backed up by a resolution. It is also backed up by the affiliated boards of trade of the Annapolis Valley. The request is that there be some federal help with regard to Fort Edward, in Windsor. I think I should read the resolution passed by the West Hants historical society. It was adopted December 13, 1976, and reads as follows:

Whereas, the West Hants historical society and other organizations in the county of Hants, Nova Scotia, have asked federal authorities to undertake an historical redevelopment of Fort Edward in Windsor; and,

Whereas the society has requested the reconstruction of the simple wooden barracks buildings for museum and display purposes; and,

Whereas Parks Canada has opened the blockhouse for public inspection in the summer season, providing pictorial displays and guides, and has indicated that plans for redevelopment are somewhere in the remote future; and.

Whereas, the hon. Mr. Warren Allmand, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, on December 1, 1976, announced a ten-year program and an expenditure of $20 million by Parks Canada for restoration of the nineteenth century Halifax Citadel;

Be it resolved:

That the West Hants historical society approves of restoration work at the Halifax Citadel, but feels that at a time when restraints are being placed on restoration programs elsewhere, the Halifax project is being done to the serious neglect of other sites such as Fort Edward and Annapolis Royal, which were not merely displays of British military muscle, but were involved in more active roles in the historical development of Canada, and had notable influence in the destinies of the French, British and native peoples of this country from a much earlier period; and,

That before any further projects of the magnitude of the restoration of the Louisbourg Fortress are carried out, to which the Halifax Citadel project was compared by the minister, more visible attention in restoration should be given to the smaller and more significant historical sites in this province.

Historic Sites

That resolution has been supported by many institutions in the Annapolis Valley, including boards of trade. The Fort Edward site was constructed in 1750, and the original blockhouse is still there. The request is that there be federal funding for the restoration of the wooden barracks so they could be set up as a display and museum area. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars; we are talking about some help to develop this site in one area of the valley. The other historic sites and museums-the habitation in Annapolis Royal and Fort Anne in Annapolis Royal-are developed. You can see the Fort Edward blockhouse right from Windsor. From all sides you can see the tides of the Bay of Fundy and the Minas Basin which are the highest tides in the world.

I do not want to prolong the debate, Mr. Speaker, but merely to put on record the request from the West County historical association and ask the department seriously to reconsider its decision. It did not completely reject the application but said it does not fit within the priorities of the programs of the department right now. Perhaps in another year, if there is more money, something might happen. I ask that this be reconsidered in view of the fact that in 1978, Windsor, which is the shire town of Hants county will celebrate its centennial. I cannot think of any more significant recognition from the federal government and the Historic Sites Board to mark the history of this region than a firm commitment of funds. This would help the people who up to now have done things pretty well on their own, as so often happens in small towns.

I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the large projects are often able to carry themselves: everyone knows about Louisbourg, the Citadel in Quebec and the Citadel in Halifax, for instance. It is the smaller projects that require more compassionate assessment by the Historical Sites Board and officials far away in the bureaucracy in Ottawa. These small sites involve the local people much more than some of the national museums.

I certainly do not want to hold up the bill, Mr. Speaker. I have read the resolution. We are talking about something that goes back to the early 1700s which is wrapped up not only in the history of the British and French but also of the Indians of the area, the first Canadians. I cannot think of any better birthday present to the people of Annapolis Valley in western Nova Scotia, and specifically to Hants county and Windsor, than to have a commitment that in 1978 something will be done at the Fort Edward site so that there will be a barracks to complement the blockhouse that is standing there.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
PC

Donald W. Munro

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take up too much of the time of the House in my remarks on this measure. There is one aspect, however, that I feel should be brought to the attention of the House. It relates to one of the most outstanding navigators and hydrog-raphers of all-time, James Cook, and the commemorative plaques and symbols that ought to be placed in various parts of the country, particularly on the west coast, in commemoration

June 6, 1977

Historic Sites

of his work. We are coming very close to the anniversary of that period of our history where James Cook made extraordinarily accurate charts of the west coast of Canada. I think it is time we commemorated those activities with more recognition than has been accorded to them.

When I visited Quebec City about two months ago I was surprised to learn that this same Captain Cook had a great deal to do with the plotting and drawing of the charts of the St. Lawrence River in 1758-59 prior to his explorations on the west coast. I have suggested to the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) that he should consider that Captain James Cook be commemorated at the appropriate time in 1978 with either a commemorative stamp or a series of stamps which would do what we have been talking about in this bill, that is, commemorate what we owe to those who opened up the country for us.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned the need for remembering the smaller people, those who have made contributions but whose names do not appear in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Of course, Captain Cook's name appears there, but we need to be reminded more often than we are at the moment of the dates when all of those who came before us discovered and plotted our lands. I make a plea again to the Postmaster General, which 1 hope will be picked up and brought to his attention-as he is not in the House today-that Captain Cook be commemorated with an issue at the appropriate time in 1978 and that a series of commemorative ceremonies be organized on the west coast to mark the historic work he did there.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
PC

Fred Alward McCain

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):

Mr. Speaker, it would be repetitious to go over, again, the importance today of historic sites to Canadians. I ask the House to be tolerant if 1 should become a little local in my remarks. Any country which has pride in itself, any group of citizens who has pride in its community and its history should use this pride as the cornerstone of development. History reveals the errors of the past, and as we plan the future it is hoped that we may learn from these errors and go forward with greater confidence in our ability to cope.

In comparison with other countries, Canada has been remiss in exploiting her historic sites. It must be admitted, of course, that we do not have the history of Athens, Rome, Paris or London. But we have our own history. It is a brilliant history, something of which we should, and must, be proud. Our citizens spend billions of dollars abroad absorbing the history of other countries, yet virtually nothing has been done to create attractions which might keep them at home or which bring people from other countries to Canada as tourists.

On the occasion of the Queen's silver jubilee, presently being celebrated in London, it is estimated that two million tourists are in the city enjoying its history. Even if we discount the historical appeal of this bill, we should perhaps examine it for its potential to keep Canadian money at home and attract foreign money to our shores.

Not too long ago I was privileged to visit the New England states. I was invited out to dinner, to the house which had formerly been the home of that famous author, John Greenleaf Whittier. That home is an historic site, preserved in all its historic grandeur and recapturing the flavour and life of the era in which the author lived. We do little of that sort of thing.

I appeal to the government to be aware of our significant historic sites and to preserve as an historic site the home Mr. Van Horne built and lived in, in my constituency. Failure to preserve the house as an historic site would cast no credit on the federal government, or on the government of New Brunswick. The site, together with all its artifacts, was at one time available for $100,000, but neither the Historic Sites and Monuments Board nor the provincial government of New Brunswick saw fit to buy the island on which Mr. Van Horne had lived and preserve it as an historic site. The house stands in a community which depends on tourist traffic for its living in the summer. Actually, tourism is the underpinning of the area's economy all year. The local chamber of commerce, the heritage trust, interested people in St. Andrews, the honorable member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and I, among others, have pleaded with governments to act immediately. All these pleas have met with procrastination.

If we do not act quickly, the site may be lost to the public. We must help the government of New Brunswick which has done its best within reasonable limits to acquire the assets of that estate, an estate of significant historical importance in the development of this country. Mr. Van Horne's first home in Montreal was destroyed to make room for development. Unless we act promptly, Mr. Van Horne's other home in my constituency may not be available to the public as an historic site. I suggest that federal and provincial authorities must co-operate to secure this site for the public.

These sites are valuable as historical records because we have reason to be proud of our history. If economic hard times lie ahead and money becomes scarce, surely it makes sense for the government to take over these premises. I could point to many significant historic sites in Carleton-Charlotte, a constituency settled relatively early in Canadian history. I expect many hon. members know of the articles Dr. George Frederick Clarke on matters of history and on historic objects he has collected over the years. But for his writings Canadians would be unaware of many matters of historical significance. Dr. Clarke has written about at least a dozen sites or places in Carleton-Charlotte which could be classified as historic sites.

Many of the sites he mentioned ought to be taken over. They would be useful for fostering the pride of our citizens and attracting visitors. I urge the government to be cognizant of places of historic interest in this country, that is, of historic sites and of the contributions of the people in our history, people who come from the west, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and all other parts of the country. We are spending millions of dollars on the development of Beausejour. I applaud the expenditure. Let us not lose sight of the impor-

June 6, 1977

tance and value of other sites, equally interesting and equally valuable to Canada today and in future.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

Order please. Is the House ready for the question?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS ACT
Sub-subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF BOARD
Permalink

June 6, 1977