Environment Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[David Brown]

It's a great question. If you'd like to see our full statement, I would encourage you to go to our website, which is savingplaces.org. We have a statement. We also have a guide for communities to think about how to deal with difficult histories and monuments that reflect difficult histories. We think these are conversations that are best had in the local community.

We need to recognize that many of these places are symbols that different groups in our communities see different ways. When we sit down and have a conversation about them, oftentimes there's a way to contextualize a monument and talk about why it was built, what it meant then, and what it means today. We've seen that happen in several communities. We've also seen where many of these monuments are starting to be moved into museums. They are able to recognize them in that way and explain how those monuments were built and why they're now not in the public sphere but in a museum, if you will.

It's a challenging question, and it's one that we obviously, in the U.S., continue to grapple with every day. We feel that there are ways to deal with it. Sometimes it's best to remove it. Sometimes it is best to contextualize it and explain it as people come and see those monuments. I think conversation is always the best opportunity, but it's not always possible, especially when violence comes up, as we saw in a place like Charlottesville.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Who would have thought that heritage, which starts off as such a nice and wonderful and innocent topic, could have such baggage?

I think I'll stop now. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, we'll go to Mr. Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our witnesses. This has been a rich panel.

I want to raise a particular example of a heritage challenge we face in the Pontiac region.

I would like to talk about one specific case in order to get your advice, but also in order to see how it could help us in other similar situations.

The old Pontiac Hotel is located on the site of the former Fort William trading post, which once belonged to the Hudson’s Bay Company. The hotel has now become a well-known tourist destination. Everyone from Pembroke and the region along the Ottawa River goes there for ice cream. There's also a beach right there. It’s a magical place. But the owner does not have the funds he needs to repair the building, which would cost a lot of money. He is subject to regulations on conserving built heritage.

What can he do in a situation like that?

Federal assistance is limited. Since the owner will not or cannot invest the amount that is necessary, one of these days, the building is going to reach such a state of disrepair that it will be impossible to do anything about it.

What can he do?

[Jacques Archambault]

My background is in project management and the conservation of heritage buildings. The first aspects to identify are the heritage values of the building. This includes the architectural, historical, environmental and social values. The building has a history in the community, both socially and as a business, as it is also a corporate building. It is a matter of being very familiar with the building.

In terms of these sorts of projects, I have had similar requests from other agencies. They wanted to know how to conserve a building and where to start. At first, it is important to contact the municipal officials to find out to what extent the building is rooted in the history of the municipality. So there's research and work to be done with the elected officials. Even if it is a business project, a private building, there is still a major social aspect.

As you may know, there are historical societies in communities, and the members, who are volunteers, can be of great help in confirming the information. By rooting the building in the community, it can be carried by the community. It is a simple answer, but a heritage building is not independent from the community. It must be carried by the community.

So it is important to bring people together by showcasing the heritage values of the building and its importance for the community, as well as by sparking interest in the building from some local organizations and stakeholders, including the elected officials, of course.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I would like to follow up that question with one for our American witness.

There were some very interesting details around the economic impacts of heritage preservation in rural communities. I wonder if you could expand on the positive economic spinoff effects that such support, in its various forms coming from U.S. governments, has provided for rural communities.

[David Brown]

I'd be glad to. We have extensive experience in all 50 states working with about 1,500 what we call “main street communities” all across the country, which are small commercial areas.

One of the things we find in terms of economic impact for preservation and heritage conservation is that much of the work is in labour cost and in local goods and services as opposed to new construction, where much of the costs are going outside the community. When you're putting money into a building in a local community for rehabilitation, you're putting it into the pocket of the local plasterer or the local plumber, and that benefits the local community.

We have, probably, not as many government programs to encourage rehabilitation in rural areas as I would like, but there have been some rural development grants and the like in the past that we've been able to try to drive toward the reuse and rehabilitation of older buildings. It's certainly an area that is ripe for more study and also more investment by governments.

I'll just mention one final thing. As governments, federal as well as provincial and municipal, think about where they put their offices and where they prioritize their investment, one of the important things that can happen is putting heritage and older buildings first in that queue in terms of looking at where governments can make an investment that really helps their community.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me start with you, Mr. Brown. Your organization was created in 1949. Over time, it has surely evolved and adapted in order to move forward. As I was listening to you, it seems that your model is effective.

What should we do to achieve this effectiveness?

What aspects of your experience could inspire Canada to be as present and active in its regions?

[David Brown]

Thank you. That's a great question.

We have worked through the decades to stay present in changes in preservation philosophy and work. We started out mostly focused on saving large historic buildings, large iconic buildings, and we grew to work more closely and effectively with community groups, recognizing that we had a limited number of buildings that we could take responsibility for. I think one of the things that can happen as the program grows in Canada is finding ways to bring new partners into the work that happens there.

I'll also bring one other point in. We're also focused at the places that in the past have taken a traditional museum approach and thinking about different ways of those buildings being places of intersection in their community. As an example, in Monterey, California, we have a historic site that for 150 years was a commercial building, then it went and became for 50 years a historic site and a museum. We're now working with a for-profit developer and will have a non-profit museum function to share the use and turn that back in many ways to its original use.

So we're being flexible and looking at different models for saving buildings. There's not just one model for preservation.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

I will continue along the same lines, in terms of the restoration of buildings and their conservation, but in cities, this time.

What do you do in urban centres with large populations? Don't they need help from your organization? Are they autonomous and do they have the support of many businesses and private supporters?

[David Brown]

There are. One of the things about the National Trust for Historic Preservation is that we have a for-profit subsidiary that provides investment capital in rehabilitating historic buildings. We work with large institutional investors to bring capital to people like Mr. Eisenberg, who's looking for capital in his particular buildings that are going to be taking advantage of the historic tax credit. It's a way that we can provide investment capital that's mission driven but that also helps the private sector find the resources it needs to be able to rehabilitate these buildings. That's just one example.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

My next question is for you, Mr. Archambault.

In your presentation, you mentioned that Quebec passed a piece of legislation in 2012, as a result of which you lost funding. We would not want to repeat that at the national level.

You say that Ontario has better legislation. Can you further explain the situation and tell us why you lost the funding? What could we do to protect ourselves and set up mechanisms and criteria to ensure that the situation you experienced in 2012 will not happen again?

[Jacques Archambault]

I know that Ontario has mutual servitude, which protects a building when an owner wants to have it recognized. We don't have that in Quebec.

In terms of the legislation, before 2012, the owners of provincially designated heritage buildings were entitled to a municipal tax credit meant as an incentive for the maintenance and conservation of the building. For reasons unknown to us, it was removed from the new legislation. We lost some money because of that, but there are places like Old Montreal, where there are a lot of heritage buildings and the owners lost a lot of money.

It seems that the money from the tax credit were not being used directly for the maintenance and conservation of the buildings. There could have been other ways to address that issue, because it was a major incentive for the building owners. We know there are many in Old Montreal. They are actually commercial buildings.

So it is important to continue to encourage people, but perhaps by regulating the way it is done and the way the money is used in the end. It is important because it's the people's money. So it has to be properly regulated. It cannot be like signing a blank cheque, far from it.

As I mentioned, in 2012, the provincial government gave municipalities a lot more responsibility for heritage, without transferring the expertise and resources. At the same time, it called on individuals to commit themselves to safeguarding the heritage. As a result, municipalities were faced with individuals asking that the heritage value of a building, site or tangible or intangible property be recognized by municipal bylaw. However, municipalities did not receive subsidies in return. They had to increase their reserve fund or create foundations.

There are cultural development agreements between provinces and municipalities, but culture is very broad. Perhaps heritage represents 10% of the sector. There are schools, the arts, and so on. It is vast.

The amendment to the legislation made the situation difficult.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you.

Mr. Bossio.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Brown, in your presentation you mentioned the national trust originally receiving government funding to build public support. What did that look like? That's the initial liftoff, right, which probably led to the program becoming privately funded? It would be beneficial to learn the lessons along the way in building that public support.

[David Brown]

For about 30 years, we received $7 million from the federal government. We used that money in a variety of ways in our work, one of which was to support our historic sites. That was the gateway, where people learned about heritage conservation and preservation in the U.S. We also built our communications team and supported studies that showed the advantages of preservation, so that we could build stronger support: stronger membership in the trust, but also just broad public support. There were a variety of ways we used that money over the course of 30 years to try to build public support. You're right, it gave us the foundation to be able to grow into a strong privately funded organization.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Was that also what gave you the ability to build your datasets, which you continue to build on today?

[David Brown]

Actually, that was probably before the time when data became available on a broader basis, as it is now. Most of our work in building the data for what's happening in the cities has really taken place in the last five to 10 years, since there's been more open-source data. We've actually brought people onto our staff who are more statisticians and the like, rather than heritage conservation experts, because they understand how to use this data, bring it together, and then help us analyze what it means for the future of the older parts of cities.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Of course, a number of questions have been asked with regard to rural. You just mentioned cities. With the datasets you're collecting, are you as able to build that same information or those same types of datasets, data points, on the rural side as you are on the larger urban areas?

[David Brown]

In some of them we are, but many communities don't have as robust data programs in smaller areas. We are seeing more and more of that happen. As more information becomes digitized in terms of where the older buildings are, where the building permits are, where the demolition permits are, and that type of stuff, as it becomes more available online it spreads out into the rural areas as well.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I liked your indication of how history is moving away from the spotlight to the full stage light, moving away from just the study of great people to a much broader and diverse study. Should this also apply to historic places in small communities rather than having a spotlight focus on major sites? You spoke about a large percentage—I can't remember exactly what the percentage was—of populations under 25,000 where you saw a lot of activity in that. What was that percentage? And did any of the specific measures taken that targeted rural areas bring about that difference?

[David Brown]

We have seen that about 40% of the federal tax credits for projects that have taken place over the last 15 years have happened in communities of fewer than 25,000 in population. We have tried to focus some of our investing through our for-profit subsidiary through what we call a “main street” investment fund. We also have been working with the Congress to try to improve the tax credit for smaller developers. Right now the tax credit works well for a large developer who does this on a regular basis, but for the mom-and-pop developer who's probably going to do one project in their lifetime and it's on their main street, it's more difficult.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Just to take that one step further, always a lot of the talk is about tax credits. I agree that it's an important vehicle, but what other vehicles have been tried in the past? Where did you see some success potentially, again focusing on the small rural areas, to try to increase that above 40% and hopefully even higher? What other legislative measures do you see that could target maybe the rural side of it to try to increase that incentive?