Evidence of meeting #72 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.
NDP
Wayne Stetski NDP Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Perhaps it comes back to Christophe again. You mentioned climate change and its impact on heritage. Would you like to expand on that a bit for us?
President, ICOMOS Canada
In 30 seconds, I will simply say there are a lot of initiatives that allow us to think about how we invest in energy efficiency, how we prepare impact assessments for our big infrastructure programs, and how to look at whether these places that we are about to evaluate should stay or not; that is, can they play an active role in fighting and addressing the challenges of climate change. We shouldn't presume that what exists doesn't perform. We should look at how it performs and whether it meets the goals of our communities.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
You're out of time, but thank you. That's very interesting, as we move forward on our reconciliation pathway and look at how that's going to shape our policies and approach.
Mr. Bossio.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
The town of Greater Napanee in my riding has as its centrepiece a Greek revival-style town hall. It's a beautiful building. It's a federal building. Actually, we have the same thing in the town of Deseronto, a beautiful post office that has the same kind of impact on the community itself. It's a centrepiece. Like so many rural communities, they have a disproportionate impact on the ability to rebuild main street in rural Canada.
One of the concerns I have is that because the funds and resources are so limited for national historic sites, and because of the lack of lobbying or funding capacity and resources that exist in much larger centres, rural Canada's historic sites are falling down much more quickly than they are in the large urban centres.
Christina, I know you spoke about tax credits, and we've talked about funding in general and the legislative improvements. I wonder how we can enshrine within the legislation or within the funding models a particular protection for rural properties, because of the disproportionate nature of those properties.
Professor and Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Assuming they are designated by some level of government, then the ownership matters. If it remains in federal ownership, then some of the things we've been talking about—
Liberal
Professor and Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
—would be a legislative issue to my point of view, and that legislation would be accompanied with some funding support, because the other departments will be looking for that. If it's out of the federal basket, then these other tools come into play. If the building were owned and operated by a not-for-profit or an institution, then—
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
In these two particular cases, one is a federally designated site and the other is a crown corporation, the post office.
Professor and Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
The crown corporations, as was said here at the table, are completely out of any federal heritage buildings policy, which only applies to departments. This would require legislation.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
What do you think that legislation would look like, though, or what tools could exist within the legislation that could cater specifically to rural communities, and how would we define that?
Professor and Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
I don't see it so much as being in the context of rural. I understand the issue is often a rural one, but it would be the obligation of a crown corporation or the obligation of another federal department to take into consideration the heritage value as recognized by either a national historic site or a site on the register of federal heritage buildings. I believe that if and when government goes forward with legislation, there will have to be some provision of money for the additional conservation requirement that would come along with that legislation.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Do you think the disproportionate nature of a rural structure should somehow add to the criteria as to...? Once again, there's only a certain bucketful of funds that's going to be available to deal with these buildings. Should there be something enshrined within the legislation or the funding model that says because the structure has such a disproportionate impact upon the overall community itself, that should be part of the criteria as to how funding mechanisms are unlocked?
Professor and Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
That could be a consideration, and in terms of priority setting, that would be something that would be considered as part of your recommendations and as part of developing legislation.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
At the department level, based on your previous experience, has a rural lens been applied in relation to these issues of historic sites?
As an Individual
I don't think a rural lens specifically has been applied. However, certainly in the early 2000s, when I was looking at these sorts of things, national historic sites were located in over 400 communities across the country. There are 900-and-some places that have been designated a national historic site, and they're to be found in about 400 communities. I did not do, and I don't think anybody has done, a rural-urban split. I think if you were to go through the list of designations, you would see that there are many national historic sites, and I'm sure there are many federal heritage buildings in small towns in rural Canada. They have not been ignored in designating. Because of the public nature of the designation process, which has been driven by people writing into the board, rural people, interestingly enough—and I think a gentleman mentioned this on Tuesday—are very committed to their heritage, and so the board over the years has dealt with a number of places in what we would call rural Canada. In terms of the funding, to my knowledge, nothing gives a leg up or an extra number of points to something.
Liberal
September 21st, 2017 / 9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
No, I'm ready.
We can all see there's an issue with the management of the inventory of historic sites. Mr. Waldron said that we learned only after the fact that a historic site had been destroyed.
I understand there's currently no way to require property owners and municipalities to provide information and to follow an assessment process. Is that correct? Obviously, once a historic site has been destroyed, it's too late. History shows that this has occurred a number of times.
What would be the best way to implement an inventory and tools to protect our heritage and infrastructure?
Let's be clear. Money is often the driving force. There are no bad intentions to destroy our heritage. However, property owners and municipalities, despite their good intentions, reach the end of their rope and must make choices based on the money available.
My question is for the four witnesses. What would be the best way to protect our heritage?
President, ICOMOS Canada
Given that Mr. Waldron was the registrar, he can provide more details that I can on the matter. However, I still want to clarify a point.
It should be noted that this inventory contains sites that have already been designated. The issue therefore is not to determine whether the sites have value. The second aspect of the inventory is that it covers all the jurisdictions.
Regarding the federal level specifically, the witnesses here agree that there's no requirement mechanism. The federal departments that could have a property designated are not required to intervene in relation to a designated building and to possibly make sure the building continues to exist. I simply wanted to make that distinction. Again, this create an issue in terms of Canada's other international obligations, which I set out earlier.
Conservative
National Heritage Conservation Manager, Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions, As an Individual
It starts with building maintenance. That's the beginning. The involvement of groups, individuals and resources is first based on the interest demonstrated by a community. The legislation is a tool that can help the people who want to protect a location get involved. The goal is really for everyone to join together to protect a site. Okay?
When a location is designated as a national historic site, a plaque is made for the location in question, and a ceremony is held. A committee member may attend the ceremony. However, the process stops there. The federal government's role doesn't go any further.
Before, there was a commemorative integrity statement. It helped bring together all the groups of a community and ensure that many people were involved in protecting a site. I did this for Cobalt, a small city in northern Ontario. All the people of this city were involved and they're now very proud of their cultural resources, which are protected. We're not talking here about implementing legislation, but about protecting rights. The legislation, tools, donations and everything else are only the beginning.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Okay. I'll stop you here because I have another question.
We all have our reasons for considering a site of historic significance, whether the site is a post office, museum, lighthouse, wharf or any other location. You've designated about 2,000 federal buildings and historic sites. These places have now been listed.
In an ideal world, we would protect everything. However, we must face the facts. It's impossible.
How do you establish an order of priority?
National Heritage Conservation Manager, Brookfield Global Integrated Solutions, As an Individual
A number of approaches are possible. I'll tell you about what we did for buildings belonging to the Department of National Defence. The department owns about 50,000 buildings. We chose representative samples of a certain type of building. There were 10,000 buildings, but we protected only a few of them. That's one of the ways we can proceed.