Evidence of meeting #71 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was places.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
As an Individual
I really don't know. I was quite removed from that when it happened.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Okay, but there was legislation at some point. It sounds like there were attempts to—
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
My apologies, we are actually out of time. Sorry about that.
Mr. Fast, please.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you all for appearing before us and contributing to the study.
Most of you have identified two areas you would like us to move forward in. One is in the area of legislation, and the other is in the area of funding. Am I correct in making that assumption? All right.
In terms of legislation, you've all talked about the fact that we don't have legislation that adequately protects national historic sites. Of course, they're scattered over different ownership structures—federal, UNESCO, provincial, private—so this is going to be a challenge. Each one of those areas is going to require a different tool, as you called it.
Are you suggesting we pull together those functions that relate to heritage protection from the different departments—you mentioned Indigenous Affairs, Environment, DND—put them together under one act, and give them to one particular department to administer?
Any of you may comment on that.
9:35 a.m.
Chair, Heritage Designations and Programs, Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada
There is a focus for the federal role here. It's obviously in the national historic sites it owns. That's the easiest part of the puzzle. The legislation can apply there quite directly, and it's quite easy to do that.
You have FHBRO now, which is an office that executes the provisions of that policy, but there's not a lot of teeth to it. That's what I was saying earlier. There is a body now. It operates within Parks Canada. What you're talking about to some degree already exists using the tool that's there, which I would claim isn't sufficient.
With respect to national historic sites owned by other bodies and by private individuals, I think it's much more difficult to do the same type of thing. You can say that no federal action should harm a national historic site owned by another body or by an individual. That can happen. I don't know how often it has happened, but certainly there are examples where that has happened. In several reports over the years this is always mentioned as something that should be done when this area is looked at.
The other thing of course is, with those other sites, how can you support, not provincial governments particularly, but private individuals who may own those sites? The thing the finance department traditionally prefers is a grants program, because it's predictable. They know exactly how much foregone revenue there will be from their point of view. That's very important as they try to predict things and do budgets, etc. They're much more leery, and you have to do a lot more fast talking, to get them to agree to do things with the tax system. I suspect even more so today, given the current situation.
There is more to be done here, and I think the cost-sharing is an easy way to start. I think to be complete you do need the tax incentive part looked at, but cost-sharing is....
Let me give you a very dramatic example. The federal program, when it existed just a few years ago, was $1 million for all classifications of structures right across the country. Just a few years ago the Quebec government itself had a program of $32 million for one classification of building, ecclesiastical structures. At one point I thought $1 million is so derisory as a program, all it's doing is raising expectations across the country and then they get dashed because the money won't be there. I came to realize that at least as a program it was a placeholder. It's much easier, if circumstances allow, to expand a program that already exists than it is to get a new program in place. I think the structure is there and it simply needs to be extended. They're doing it at $10 million a year now, hardly a huge amount of money, given what's involved.
Huge leverage is involved with this program. In other words you give out the money and you say for every dollar we give out, you have to raise two, or you have to show...there are all sorts of conditions put on it. There are the statistics to show that it works. Not only does it work, but then there is also the spinoff activity so it has all the economic and employment benefits, and so on.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Anybody else want to comment?
I guess the challenge we have as committee members is, yes, it's all about competing interests. When you place historic sites within the larger context of competing interests, sometimes they lose out.
We need to put in place a way of addressing these challenges by not only relying on taxpayer money, but allowing the private sector to be inspired and incented to contribute its part. Any additional information that you may have about how we can do that.... If it's by tax incentives, I would welcome follow-up submissions that tell exactly how you would like to see that done, so we can be a little more specific in the report that will emanate from this body.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
There's going to be no time to answer that within the timing, but there are more question opportunities coming up, so maybe we can explore that further. Also you can send something afterwards, as well, and we'll talk about that.
Go ahead, Mr. Stetski.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Thank you for being here today. I just want to reassure you that my experience of this committee is that it really does focus on trying to solve problems rather than on partisan politics.
9:40 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I have a number of questions. I want to start with Parks Canada specifically. You mentioned that there are $3.6 billion targeted to fix Parks Canada's infrastructure, and I'm not sure over what length of time that is. I
s any of that money particularly targeted at the historic resources that need fixing, and if not, how do they get on the list?
9:40 a.m.
Vice-President, Indigenous Affairs and Cultural Heritage Directorate, Parks Canada Agency
Yes, the investment of $3.6 billion is over five years. It started in late 2014. It's to support all of our infrastructure work to natural and cultural areas, so not just national historic sites. We estimate that approximately $1.3 billion is being invested to preserve, rehabilitate, and restore national historic sites. Again, those can be structures, not necessarily all the cultural resources in those sites but the broad national historic sites. It could be all kinds of repair.
As I mentioned in my remarks, there was a lot of deferred maintenance over the years on a lot of our assets, so this is really aimed at this. As we are doing this work, we are doing impact assessment on cultural resources and making sure the work is done in a way to protect and preserve our cultural resources.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Having said that, you've said that Parks Canada is not accepting any new national historic site proposals. Just to help me and I guess to help Canadians in general, if you have a place, a person, or an event that you think is important, how does that get protected in the end? What's the process and who has to agree to take it on, because there are multi-levels, it seems, currently involved with historic preservation?
9:45 a.m.
Vice-President, Indigenous Affairs and Cultural Heritage Directorate, Parks Canada Agency
As we mentioned earlier, with respect to national historic sites, Parks Canada is looking at expanding the system through the designation process, and this comes from proposals from the public in general, which are reviewed by the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board, so they could be owned by any other owners. They may happen to be on our own sites, on federal lands. It could happen to be on Parks Canada lands if it's part of a national park, for instance, but we're not to acquire sites beyond the designation. The designation is one step in terms of expanding the national historic site system, but not necessarily by Parks Canada buying those sites.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
9:45 a.m.
Chair, Heritage Designations and Programs, Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada
Yes, and our agenda is totally driven, pretty well, by public interest as we receive those nominations from the public for persons, places, or events. If it's a place, all right, it's going to get its plaque. The plaque will be installed and there will be a ceremony and some recognition that way. But in terms of protecting that site, if it's not owned by the federal government and therefore coming under FHBRO to some degree, or by Parks Canada where it's going to get the money directly through the Parks Canada budget because they have a responsibility to keep up assets to a certain level....
They do a pretty good job. I must say over the years, I have nothing but good things to say about the Parks Canada operation in this area, but it's very tough, given funding and the competition for the funding.
The point is that there's no protection unless there's municipal protection or some form of provincial protection. There's no federal protection for that site if it's privately owned.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
We had a number of great monuments and signs that were in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, and they've disappeared over the years. They go up once, and then who's responsible to make sure that they are maintained in the future?
9:45 a.m.
Chair, Heritage Designations and Programs, Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada
Parks Canada is responsible to make sure they are maintained. There is a program, and they certainly are replaced when it's identified. If the text on the plaque is more than 25 years old, it will be re-examined in terms of the most recent historiography because, of course, one has a new appreciation of a number of things as history is written over the years. Therefore, we occasionally will revise a text when that occurs.
There have been thefts of plaques, especially as metal prices have gone up at certain points, and occasional vandalism, but Parks Canada is pretty good at trying to identify and have a program for replacement.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Okay, so if a community had one and for some reason it has disappeared, they should go back to Parks Canada.
9:45 a.m.
Vice-President, Indigenous Affairs and Cultural Heritage Directorate, Parks Canada Agency
Yes.