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?