Environment Committee on Oct. 17th, 2017

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

One of my big concerns has always been that a tax credit program will benefit larger urban centres and those who are well heeled, who have the money and financing to be able to do it.

Through the contributions and grants type of programs, is it better to allocate funds to areas that are not as wealthy, small rural communities? Right now, we see that the small rural properties have a huge impact on the overall community itself, the look of the community, and therefore the future potential of the community to be a draw with respect to tourism and in other ways.

Do you think there's greater flexibility through that, from legislative measures to the tax credit, versus the contributory-type plan?

Monsieur LeBlanc.

[Pierre LeBlanc]

It's a very good question.

The way we wanted to frame it is that there are advantages and disadvantages of each approach. My sense is—and we're not experts on the spending side—that it could well be easier. One of the points we made is that if you're trying to achieve rural equity, whether it's regional or sectoral or urban, spending programs might lend themselves more easily to that. At the same time, there could be a loss of other forms of flexibility, so it's about managing the trade-offs.

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

I had other questions, but I know that Mr. Gerretsen really wants to get in on this, so I'll pass the rest of my time over to him.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you. I actually wanted to ask Parks Canada a question.

You said that your role is to work with partners to preserve and protect historic spaces. I think this is extremely germane. If many of the properties that existed out there were in good repair and condition, then we might not have the need to look at alternatives like this one.

Tell us how you do that. How do you work with your partners to preserve and protect historic spaces?

[Genevieve Charrois, Director, Cultural Heritage Policies, Parks Canada Agency]

I think that this reference is specific to national historic sites per se, which are designated by the minister of—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'll give you an example of one.

In Kingston there is the Outer Station, which is a former CN train station. That is the definition of demolition by neglect. It's not even owned by a third partner. It's owned by a crown corporation, which is extremely concerning. If you can't even work with crown corporations to get them to understand the necessity to rehabilitate these properties—and that one is designated a national historic site—why is it that you claim to be so good at doing it? You can't even get that done with a crown corporation.

[Genevieve Charrois]

It's hard to answer this one. We're not claiming that we're...or wanting to sound good at managing all these heritage places, but we are having some success with some of the work we're undertaking with national historic sites and heritage railway stations. For every one that may not be a success, we can have a success elsewhere.

But yes, it's true that you have a station in Kingston that is—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

It's just one of many sites. I won't belabour the point. I think you answered my question.

If there is any time left, Mr. Bossio, do you want to ask something?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I think we're down to 30 seconds.

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

I have one quick question.

Why is only 60% of the Canadian register list complete? I mean, it's been since 2003. Are there specific reasons why?

[Genevieve Charrois]

The reason is that most of the listings that are missing on the register right now are from the provinces and territories. Some stopped uploading information to the Canadian register, because in a way there was no need for them to do that.

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

There was no incentive.

[Genevieve Charrois]

There was no incentive. Some went to a provincial registry on their own, and now, to have the two systems speak together, there's difficultly from an IT perspective. We're not saying it's impossible, but it would require work for sure, and some goodwill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

What I'm hearing from our Parks Canada officials is that the register isn't complete, and therefore there is not full-throated support of this bill, which would actually improve the ability, provide new incentives, for people to invest in these historic buildings. Am I correct?

[Joëlle Montminy]

I think what we're saying is that the bill makes reference to accountability tools and refers to the Canadian register. We're saying that if the sites or buildings that would be eligible for the tax incentive are supposed to be those designated currently under the register, that tool is currently not in a state that would be practical to use.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Isn't that tool within your purview? You are ones who are administering that tool, are you not?

[Joëlle Montminy]

The Canadian register is a provincial, territorial, and federal collaboration. It's not mandatory for the other partners to provide the information in the Canadian register.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Are you saying that the problem may lie at the municipal and provincial levels?

[Joëlle Montminy]

Provincial and territorial; municipal is under provincial—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Have you done everything at the federal level that can be done to facilitate full registration?

[Joëlle Montminy]

We continue to strongly encourage our partners to share the information, but short of making it mandatory, we cannot guarantee 100% success in having a fully complete register.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Okay.

You talked about the concern about accountability measures, that they needed to be perhaps more robust. Did I understand that correctly?

[Joëlle Montminy]

Yes. We are saying that the tool would have to be complete in order to serve as the basis for eligibility.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

If those tools were complete, would Parks Canada be supportive of this proposed bill and program?