Environment Committee on Oct. 19th, 2017

[Robert Wright]

Exactly.

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

There is a chance, however, that the date could change.

[Robert Wright]

I don't think so.

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

We will finally put the rumours on the Hill to rest. Thank you.

[Robert Wright]

Yes.

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

My first question is for Ms. Owens.

In your presentation, you indicated that you are a watchdog in terms of making sure that departments comply with the law. When departments are unable to respect the law and comply with it, for whatever reason, what powers do you have to compel them to do so?

[Kathleen Owens]

Thank you for your question. I will answer in English, if you don't mind.

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

Of course. I have access to interpretation.

[Kathleen Owens]

For departments that don't respect the policy, the lever the Treasury Board has is related to the deputy's delegation. Departments have delegations to do things under their own authority and others for which they require Treasury Board authority.

If we are aware of a department that is flagrantly not respecting Treasury Board policy, there is an opportunity to recommend to the Treasury Board that this deputy's delegated authority be reduced. In other words, projects they could normally do under their own authority would now have to go to the Treasury Board. That's the main lever the Treasury Board has with respect to policy.

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

You said you take action once you have been informed. Is there police at Treasury Board to make sure that departments fulfill their obligations?

[Kathleen Owens]

Deputy heads are responsible for compliance. We have an overall government-wide monitoring role. We're limited by how many lines of sight we have into departments and what they're actually doing and that's one of our challenges.

For example, we know we have some information on the building condition of federal properties, but not necessarily on what they're doing in relation to heritage conservation. That is one area that Kevin mentioned in his remarks that PSPC is going to be a little more proactive about sharing that information.

Other ways we can see if there are problems and have lines of sight into departments is the OAG audit and evaluation. Sometimes when departmental transactions come to the Treasury Board, we can ask lots of questions and get some insight as well. There are some limitations in that government-wide monitoring role, but we do our best to get a handle on what's happening within the real property function government-wide.

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

Thank you.

My next question is for you, Mr. Radford. In buildings such as these, failing to respond promptly or neglecting maintenance can result in a need for major renovations. After listening to your presentation, I see that the situation is very positive and that you have it well in hand. That is reassuring for us, as parliamentarians.

Could we do more, however? Ms. Owens said there are measures, but that effectiveness is not maximized—that is the word I will use.

Could anything be improved to ensure you have the necessary tools to take action before the fact?

[Kevin Radford]

Thank you for your question.

In my opinion, in every situation, there is a principle we can use to improve the condition of each building, such as those on McNabs Island.

We can adopt a portfolio planning concept. My colleague Mr. Wright says he has a long-term vision and plans for the long term. That applies to his entire portfolio. Portfolios include more than just buildings.

It's also things like, in budget 2016, the government announced money to go towards rehabilitating the heating and cooling plants that serve many of the buildings in the parliamentary precinct and many others. It's having a plan from a portfolio perspective.

In one neighbourhood, owing to the energy requirements of the buildings, we have to make provision for that kind of thing. In my opinion, in government it is hard to find planning that is spread out over 10, 20 or 30 years. Major building restoration work is usually done for 100 years—as is the case for the parliamentary precinct—, and for many of the buildings in my portfolio, large office buildings, renovations are scheduled every 40 years. That requires a different kind of planning. We can do that.

My colleague Ms. Owens talked about 26 custodians. Every year, we receive nearly $2 billion for services for other custodians. We usually do one project at a time. There is not really an overview for the portfolio as a whole.

Thirteen of the custodians are science-based departments, so if they have special purpose lab space but they're looking at each lab one at a time, it's more difficult to develop an investment strategy on a larger scale. This is why I think Treasury Board is looking at things like the horizontal fixed asset review. Is there a better investment strategy where you can incorporate heritage, accessibility, greening, etc.?

That's a long answer, but that's my thinking about doing things a little differently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Okay, thank you very much.

We're out of time. We're well past time, actually, but I let you run quite a bit there. You went two minutes over.

Pierre Nantel.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank you first of all for welcoming me to the committee.

These are extremely relevant topics, especially in Canada's sesquicentennial year. I commend you for making park admission free of charge. It is actually Minister Mélanie Joly's initiative, as I understand it, which is quite confusing since it should have been announced by Minister Catherine McKenna, but was instead announced by Ms. Joly. It is hard to figure out. Heritage buildings are the responsibility of Parks Canada, but it was the minister of Canadian Heritage who made the announcement. Oh, well.

I can tell you that I took advantage of it. I visited Banff Park. I went to Île du Havre aux maisons, I saw the new set-up of the picnic grounds on the beach. It is magnificent. I also visited Cape Breton Island, and Alexander Graham Bell's house, in Baddeck, which in my opinion perfectly illustrate your mandate.

I also visited the Louis S. St. Laurent National Heritage Site, in Compton. It was very interesting, but also very old-fashioned, very antiquated and very outdated, compared to the iPad world that our young people live in now. I could see my little nephew snoring.

I will not talk about the atmosphere there should be at Churchill National Park, because it must be very difficult in Churchill. It was a good initiative. I think young people from Kingston would be happy that the Churchill initiative was located in the old train station. The train station in Churchill was a good choice, I think. It was the most important place to rehabilitate. It is difficult right now, but I think the site is very nice and very representative, but it is of course a bit antiquated.

According to the notes in the documents prepared by Mr. Ménard, a number of witnesses mentioned that you—I mean Parks Canada and Environment Canada—are perhaps not best placed to fulfill the federal responsibility for heritage buildings.

Do you think we should consider a new way division of responsibilities? I am asking because places like Kingston are one thing, but in Montreal, for example, the new CHUM was created.

Moreover, I commend you for what you manage with the NCC and Parliament, and for all the work you do. It is spectacular. It is a huge responsibility. In Montreal, there are truly some flagship buildings, such as the Royal Victoria Hospital, the Montreal Children's Hospital, and the Shriners Hospitals for Children. There are many buildings that are suddenly “abandoned”, or some might say “vacant”, whereas others will enthusiastically refer to them as nice prospective condo developments.

So when organizations such as Heritage Montreal, to which Dinu Bumbaru belongs, say to be careful and wonder what can be done with those facilities, to whom should they turn?

[Genevieve Charrois]

I will consider that question as being intended for me, since I represent the Parks Canada Agency.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Yes.

[Genevieve Charrois]

It is true that the Parks Canada Agency is responsible for built heritage, under the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Ms. McKenna.

I think built heritage is in the right place, and for good reasons, historically speaking. On the other hand, a minister's responsibility is clearly limited to federal lands. She does not have jurisdiction over all the heritage buildings in the provinces, territories and municipalities.

The only way she can take action at the provincial and territorial level is with respect to national designations. A national designation is honorary, however. It does not include any kind of protection or budget, except for a small program that we discussed, the national cost-sharing program for heritage places. This program generally has $1 million per year to distribute to all federally-designated places.

The greatest limitation is that we take action with respect to federal lands only.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

To my mind, these matters are clearly related to Canadian identity.

You will agree that it was indeed Mélanie Joly who made the announcement. I don't know whether Ms. McKenna also made the announcement, but logically speaking, the Minister of Canadian Heritage would consider Louis S. St-Laurent house as part of her mandate and her environment.

Is there no cooperation in the designation of sites to be preserved which, once they are so designated, are acquired by Public Services and Procurement Canada or potentially by the Canada Lands Company? You obviously have all the necessary expertise to manage what is offered to the public. Does such an oversight body already exist?

I think Mr. Radford has something to say as well.

[Genevieve Charrois]

I cannot fully answer your question.

I can tell you, however, that the two departments do cooperate. Ms. Joly plays an active role with respect to museums. Some of those museums are also heritage buildings, so responsibility for buildings can overlap. I would say that cooperation occurs primarily in such situations.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Radford, do you have anything to add?

[Kevin Radford]

Yes, thank you.

I also have a unit at the Department of Canadian Heritage. My organization's main client now is probably the parliamentary precinct, for which Mr. Wright is responsible, but we also offer services to other custodians, as I said in my presentation.

We have experts. We also rely on partnerships with universities. In the summer, we hire a lot of students to carry out studies for other organizations, which in turn pay for those services. That is included in last year's $2 billion when we offered services to other custodians. That is one of the services we offered to other departments.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Aldag.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you and good morning to our witnesses.

This is the last hearing that we have in our study right now on heritage, and I would say that it's kind of sectioned out into two pieces. One is looking at how the federal government gets its own house in order, and then how we support the larger heritage movement within Canada.

I have just a couple of questions on the larger heritage piece, and then I would like to get into the federal “house in order” piece.

On supporting the larger heritage conservation movement in Canada, we've heard from organizations such as the National Trust for Canada about the need for two things. Darren touched a bit on the idea of a “do no damage” kind of policy.

I don't know if PSPC is able to speak to whether or not we have something like this now. When we're procuring services, if we're losing spaces or even giving money to organizations, is there a way of making sure that the work that is being funded by the federal government is not going to do damage to heritage?

That's one thing we've heard, and I'm wondering if there is a mechanism in place so that it is one of the lenses that's applied. You may not be the right one, but a lot of the contracts and that kind of thing would go through your department. Are there any mechanisms right now that make sure the federal government, through its procurement policies and actions, is not actually leading to the destruction of heritage in Canada?