Government Operations Committee on Feb. 20th, 2007

[Sheila Fraser]

I recall three, but I'll ask Madame Vienneau to comment.

We looked at the Armoury in Halifax; the Redoubt in the Citadelle, which is one of the buildings in the Citadelle; and the Admiral's Residence in Victoria. I'm sure there are more.

[Aline Vienneau]

If you look on page 19, chapter 2, there's a list of all the sites we visited during the audit.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I'm wondering if you could tell us a bit about these sites and about the problem that does exist.

For some, it seems the problem is just capitalization. And as part of the real estate study that the Minister of Public Works was talking about before the committee, the 40 sites that we've recommended to the two sources outside who are looking at the federal government's real estate portfolio and looking for opportunities to recapitalize and how we can diminish approximately $4 billion in exposure that exists to taxpayers—And what you might recommend with regard to heritage sites in terms of the upkeep that needs to take place. The vast majority of heritage sites, you note, are well maintained and are moving forward. Of course some of them are in smaller, remote communities, so you can't charge people at gates in order to visit them, and raising money that way isn't the best way.

What would you recommend for the differing problems and the differing shortness of capital?

[Sheila Fraser]

I think the major problem facing the government is the increasing number of heritage sites. We indicate in one of the examples here that the numbers are increasing every single year.

The Department of National Defence has 8,000 buildings that are over 40 years old that should be evaluated under the policy. I don't think everybody is going to say that 8,000 buildings are going to be...but even just to evaluate them all.

The system has difficulty conserving the ones that are already designated. We give the example of Fort Henry. We give a whole bunch of examples of sites that I think most people would say are clearly national historic sites and are in significant need of major repairs.

We're saying that there needs to be a much better link between the whole aspect of designating the sites and the funding for the conservation, plus establishing priorities.

As shown in exhibit 2.4, about 400 to 500 sites are evaluated every year, and 30 to 50 are designated. It just keeps adding on to a situation that is already difficult.

So depending on the level of funding, I guess some could question whether there would ever be enough funding for all of it. Given the level of funding that exists, the government has to pick some priorities and decide what we have to keep.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I know I can ask the Department of Public Works this question, but I'll ask you, because maybe you can help me with a shortcut here.

Ever since I was first elected, back in 2000, there has always been a private member's bill—or 10—before the House, where somebody is saying they're going to have their local post office or their local whatever declared a heritage site.

I guess this is a two-part question. One, is it your sense that it is too easy in Canada for sites to be recognized as heritage sites, and then, therefore, you have all the—?

I know, for example, in my riding, Terry Fox is buried in a very quaint, cute, small cemetery that's actually quite humbling for a real Canadian hero. It's actually a neat place. I looked at the idea of getting it declared a heritage site. I was shocked at just how easily that's done. And then, commensurate with that recognition comes all kinds of funding responsibilities, upkeep responsibilities, designation responsibilities, and notification responsibilities to the federal government. I was really surprised at how easily a heavy burden can be brought to the federal government by a quick act of Parliament through a private member's bill or motion. Do you think this process is too easy?

Two—and then I guess I'm out of time here—relative to other jurisdictions, do you know how many heritage sites we have? I don't know if you do it on a per capita basis or how it might be done. Are we way over our proportionate number of heritage sites compared to other countries? Would you know that number?

[Sheila Fraser]

Just on the first question, we didn't specifically look at the whole process for designation. We were really focusing on government's management of the sites of which it is the owner.

We have said in a previous audit on this whole question that government probably needs to look at different ways, too, of involving local communities in helping to manage this, to try to involve others, and at more innovative ways of maintaining some of these sites.

As for the number of national historic sites, I don't think we have that information. I would just guess that being a young country we probably have a lot fewer than some, but I don't know.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Okay, sorry, that was a shot in the dark.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Bonin.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Merci, madame la présidente.

I'd like to speak about passports. I guess I can say, on behalf of my staff, that they are very pleased with the performance of your employees at that department. In spite of everything, they do what they can. They have been very efficient.

At any one time in the last month and a half, we've been about 200,000 passports behind. As an auditor—I wonder why it's not brought to our attention that $16 million is sitting in bags of mail on the floor, unopened, for months at a time.

Isn't that something that's serious?

[Sheila Fraser]

I guess all I can say in response is that the audit was finished in August of last year. That's why; it was before all of this happened.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

That explains it. Because at a quick calculation, over $16 million is sitting in bags of mail.

My question is for Mr. Flageole. How come we were assured, in the past, that the mail would be opened on the day it arrived at your building? Why not open the mail, enter the data into the computer and send the documents back after they have been checked?

What is most embarrassing for us, in our offices, is to tell people that on February 8, for example, we are only going through mail from December 15. That cannot be justified. I fail to see why the mail is not opened every day and data are not immediately entered. If you wish, we can begin to enter them at our offices. People apply for passports, send their birth certificates and cannot even drive to the United States. It takes three months to receive a passport. When people are asked to pay $85, they are entitled to receive some service. Why not open the mail every day?

[Richard Flageole, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Madam Chair, I believe that that would be a good question for the Passport Canada official.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Oh, that is not you.

[Richard Flageole]

As Ms. Fraser indicated—

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

He will appear here on Thursday, but I will not be here. I will therefore withdraw my question. I will not be here, but perhaps someone else can ask the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We will make sure that your question is addressed.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Okay, and maybe you can wrap their knuckles because of the $16 million that are piled up in a corner and collecting dust over a month and a half. Therefore, I apologize.

Raymond, you may continue.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much, and thank you to my colleague for his time.

I want to get back to the question that I asked on reissuing SINs. The more I think about it, the more it's not a crazy idea.

What I neglected to say was that with a more secure SIN, maybe with a picture ID, then you could take all the other ones out of circulation. It seems to me to make a lot of sense, instead of keeping on for the next three or four years trying to resolve this problem.

Is this something that you, as Auditor General, could or would recommend?

[Sheila Fraser]

That is clearly an issue of policy, because it comes into the whole question of the national identification card, which was studied and discussed at length a while ago.

One of the issues that we've brought up here is the whole policy around the social insurance number. When it was introduced, the government deemed it to be kind of a file identifier and nothing more than that, largely for income tax purposes. Today this is still kind of the attitude of government vis-à-vis the social insurance number.

Over the years, the use of the social insurance number has increased significantly, not only within the federal government, but also in the private sector. We've strongly recommended in our past audits that the government needed to look at the policy again, regarding its appropriate use within government.

They did their own study in 2003 and essentially came to the same conclusions. They started some work, but then people told us they moved to other priorities, and they're saying the policy won't be updated until 2008.

We think that it's an essential part of this whole question, because depending on the what the abuse is that could lead to a renewal process for cards, or some kind of—

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

We can also assume that our databanks today are a lot more precise than they were years ago. I think you could reissue them fairly easily.

I'm kind of stuck on this, and I think it's a good idea. Hopefully our colleagues will move on that.

Hopefully we'll be able to study this in this committee, because there's still 2.9 million out there. It's a huge issue; I agree with my colleague here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

We go to Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you very much, madam Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

I am very interested in the issue of built heritage. I think of the horror stories that we experienced in the city of Gatineau, it was in the city of Hull at the time, when the Hammond House was destroyed. Historically speaking, the Outaouais is a young Quebec region. It was founded in 1800. The Hammond House was destroyed, and the mayor at the time said that it was better to destroy that historic house and make room for a car dealership, which would provide the city with tax revenue, than to preserve the house. It was a stone building. Imagine the outcry! Unfortunately, it came too late: the house was demolished. The incident, however, led to the establishment of the Société d'histoire de l'Outaouais. Something positive was born of that negative event. Built heritage is greatly appreciated, on that side of the river.

When M. Fortier appeared last week—M. Moore spoke about that earlier—he brought with him interesting data, which I did not have. Under former Minister Brison, a list had been drawn-up with 370 or 372 buildings for sale. Under the current government, there is talk of some 40 buildings for sale. We are also told that Treasury Board does not have any set rules, or specific indications on how historic buildings have to be administered before being sold. When a clause states that the department in question has to do all in its power to find a new vocation for a building, if there are no criteria, the whole thing can be done in half an hour, depending on the efforts required.

The Canada Parks Agency has criteria, so there is at least one such agency. Treasury Board does not have any. How could the former encourage the latter? That might not be part of your mandate, but isn't there something we could do in this regard? Do you have any comments you would like to make?

[Sheila Fraser]

At the very least, the policy would have to be improved so that it covers more than only buildings and that some terms be clarified. It would be relatively simple to do so. Of course, the ultimate answer would be to use the legislation, but at least the policy should be strengthened.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Ms. Nash and Ms. Marleau spoke earlier about recognized historic buildings that are currently for sale in the region. To my great surprise, an article in the Ottawa citizen refers to a document prepared by our analysts. It mentions the East and West Memorial Buildings, which are right on Parliament Hill. There is also Ottawa's old City Hall, a short distance away on Sussex Street. The national printing bureau is in the Hull sector.

When we talk about selling buildings on Parliament Hill, that might not be funny, but it make me smile. I said to myself that at one point, they might sell Parliament for a lot of money and transform it into a museum. When my children were young, I would tell them that we were going to visit the pirates' castle. Guess who is now sitting in the pirates' castle? Anecdotal story aside, I wonder whether there are rules that prohibit consideration of certain properties, for example, the East and West Buildings, which are up for sale. I do not know if Disney World wants to purchase them, or what.

[Sheila Fraser]

Perhaps Ms. Vienneau could answer the question.