Government Operations Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Perhaps you can speak to her.

We'll continue with Ms. Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I wanted to congratulate you on your presentation. In a previous life, I was a real estate management consultant for the Government of Quebec. We worked in the construction of early childhood centres. That included the implementation of an innovative way of managing a real property stock. Around 2004, before I became a member of Parliament, the Government of Quebec, in particular the CIQ, was wondering how it was going to manage the 350 buildings that it owned. I remember a study that had been conducted and published at that time. It enabled us to see what the best choice was for taxpayers.

The federal government clearly proceeded quickly. As you mentioned, the fact that the criteria are not known and that people don't know how this was done is appalling. However, there are also other aspects that may have an impact on the way we manage our buildings. I have a study here. We've had the same problem in the past. As you are no doubt aware, there is a high turnover rate among professionals. It's no different in the Government of Quebec or in other public bodies. When the turnover rate is high among professionals, that increases project management costs. Perhaps you could explain to us whether there are problems of this kind at the Department of Public Works and Government Services. I know that's a fairly specific question. Is the turnover rate of technical staff a problem that the department should address? Otherwise, should the department address the way it manages its projects and real property stock?

The Government of Quebec has maintained its real property stock and has a maintenance plan because it was forced to realize at one point that it was facing challenges of this kind with buy-outs, the way it retained its staff and the decision to retain management of its public buildings. There has to be an advantage in doing that.

[Don Burns]

I'm not aware that the Department of Public Works and Government Services has an issue with the loss of professional staff. Most of the work is contracted out to private consultants and is only managed by the engineers and architects within Public Works, so I don't believe there is a problem. In the future that may materialize, with our aging workforce, but at the present time I'm not aware that there is any problem that way with the capacity to do the work in-house.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

The staff used to manage the real property stock consists of professional subcontractors. Is that what you're saying?

[Michèle Demers]

Those who do project management are part of our staff.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Are these people from the private sector?

[Michèle Demers]

These are federal public service employees affiliated with our union. As a general rule, consulting firms handle the operations. If there is any turnover, that may be where it occurs. I don't think there is a disproportionate turnover rate among professionals at Public Works and Government Services.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

All right. So you don't think staff has an additional workload that, combined with factors such as a turnover rate—

[Michèle Demers]

For decades now, professionals have been asked to do more with less. Resources have been cut and certain programs have been cancelled, which has had the cumulative effect of significantly increasing the burden. No one has told us that was one of the reasons or factors leading to the sale of federal buildings.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

These aren't internal factors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Ms. Faille.

We're going to end with Mr. Kramp. Then we'll be able to hear from our next witness.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to our witnesses. I think everyone shares our passion of purpose on this. There obviously are some differences of opinion, but it's just that. If you were to talk to Canadians in general, you'd probably have 30 million different opinions. Our duty as a committee is to report not on what we want, wish, feel, see, not just what tears at the heart, but the factual information that is presented to this committee. That's the one point that sort of does concern me with your position right now, although certainly no offence is meant from this.

Obviously, as stated by Mr. Moore, we've had the minister directly, five times, before this committee on the issue. We have heard from many, many expert witnesses, whether in the private field, the public field, or the educational field. We've heard from professors, ministers, deputy ministers, financial experts. We've heard a pile of pros and cons on this entire topic.

The committee came to its deliberations based on the testimony that was given, the specific testimony on specific topics, on specific rental leases--understanding, of course, that the devil can be in the details in many leaseback arrangements and/or whatever else notwithstanding.

As an example, the CBC building in Toronto has been deemed by many in the professional field to be one of the most idealistic lease arrangements that they have seen. It really covered both ends of the spectrum, with built-in protection for both owner and lessee. The decision to learn from of all of these things and the information that came to this committee really established the best practices for us to go forward.

That's why I really think it's incumbent on you to fully evaluate the testimony that has been given here and perhaps come back to this committee, after having fully evaluated all of the detailed testimony from previous governments, in addition to our government's--and all of the other independent parties'--on this issue.

I'm not suggesting your assessment might not be correct--it might not change, or it might--but I really have difficulty with, “Well, in the opinion of The Globe and Mail....” With all due respect to our national media, they obviously didn't sit through the hours and hours of testimony from the witnesses that this committee did before it passed its opinion. Unfortunately, a number of our new committee members here as well, although well-intentioned, did not listen either to the countless hours of testimony on this issue that this committee did before passing judgment.

We have not come up with our final conclusions, obviously, and your testimony is important. Might I ask you once again, what particular comment, what particular statement, what particular testimony are you in direct contradiction with or do not agree with?

I think it's an unfair question to ask you right now....

[Michèle Demers]

No, it's not unfair at all. Actually, I fully understand where you're coming from, and I fully understand what you're trying to get from me.

I would love to have come to this committee with factual information, with a good understanding of what this process is about, where the government is going with it, and what the impact will be on Canadians in the long term. I swear on my honour, we were unable to get any precise, focused information.

As I tried to say to your colleague, no, I didn't contact the clerk, but I did try to get as much information as I could that was relevant to the members I represent. I was unable to do that.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

What I suggest, with all due respect, is that I think there is more information you need. It is readily available though our clerk, and it's readily available through the media releases from October 31, 2007. It's available from a number of sources. You can take that, and if you still have legitimate concerns.... I'm not suggesting that they're not, because we need to hear a total perspective.

Access that, and if you have a level of discomfort at that particular point, then please, by all means, you're certainly welcome before this committee to express your reservations and/or your concerns. But I think it's incumbent upon you. If you were just not aware that the possibility existed before, I can understand, because we live in a rather complex bureaucratic world up in this Ottawa scene. I hope that is an explanation you would find satisfactory.

[Michèle Demers]

Madam Chair, may I ask this gentleman just one short question before I leave?

If what you say is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, can you explain to me why this committee asked for a moratorium late last fall because they didn't have enough information on the sale of the buildings? Where's the link between what you say and what happened a couple of months ago?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

It's the difference between the building--

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

The minister came before the committee after that.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

The minister came to this committee and responded exactly to that question. He gave, to my mind, a very reasonable explanation as to a separation of the types of buildings and the lease arrangements that could or should be made for those particular buildings versus the lease arrangements that might or might not be available for some of the other buildings. Of course, it came down to a cost-benefit analysis all the way through. I extrapolated not only for the time period of 20 to 25 years, but obviously in perpetuity, as best as anybody could guess, given the unknown circumstances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Mr. Kramp.

Madame Bourgeois has a point of order.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I have a point of order. I find it quite curious that the Professional Institute is being told to get more information and come and find the documents. We committee members have sat for some time and we don't have that information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Ms. Bourgeois, what is your point of order? That's not a point of order.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Whatever, I simply wanted to say that we shouldn't question the appearance of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much.

Do you know what? I'm going to end this right now, and I'm going to tell you that as a former Minister of Public Works, and as a person who has been in Ottawa as a representative for almost 20 years, I remain to be convinced one way or the other. I've been chairing this committee throughout all the hearings, and I'm still not convinced. Now, I know that there are times when there are good deals and there are others that aren't so good, but I still remain to be convinced to this day. There's an awful lot of information here, and sometimes it's very difficult to really know.

Thank you very much for coming before us.

We'll just take a minute break so we can hear from our next witness, Madame Bull, who is the executive director of the Heritage Canada Foundation. This next segment will be about heritage buildings in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I'll bring the committee back to order.

We have our guests here. We have Madame Natalie Bull here, who is the executive director of the Heritage Canada Foundation.

We're very interested in heritage buildings and the management of them, because I know the Government of Canada has a great number of them, and that's why we've invited you here today.

I'm going to cut your time short because we were late getting started. If you'd like to make a short presentation, we'll then open it to questions.

[Natalie Bull, Executive Director, Heritage Canada Foundation]

Thank you for the invitation to present to the committee.

The Heritage Canada Foundation is an independent charitable organization with a public mandate to promote the protection, rehabilitation, and sustainable reuse of Canada's historic buildings. You may have heard recently about our “Make Landmarks, Not Landfill” campaign.

You might ask why the Heritage Canada Foundation is interested in this topic and why we've been invited. The federal government is a major property holder and counts more than 1,300 designated heritage buildings among its inventory. There are many more buildings that are eligible for review as heritage buildings but are in a backlog not yet reviewed, so that number could be much higher. Buildings are getting older every day, so the numbers rise regularly.

Canadians look to their federal government for leadership and as an example. Therefore, federal actions and decisions about the treatment of heritage buildings is of great interest to the Heritage Canada Foundation.

The 35 buildings in the real estate study included many heritage buildings, such as the Dominion Building in Toronto, the National Printing Bureau in Gatineau, the East Memorial building in Ottawa, and the Wellington Building that we're sitting in today. I'm sure you noticed its beautiful public spaces as you came in. It also included a number of what we would call recent heritage buildings, or potential heritage buildings, like the Gatineau Preservation Centre and the Asticou Centre. These are buildings that have a special architectural quality and would likely be considered heritage buildings at some point.

Our concerns fall into two areas. One is the important role of the federal government as a trustee of legacy buildings. Our second concern is the risk that heritage buildings face when they leave the federal inventory. I'd like to say a few words about those two ideas.

The first one is the question of legacy. Federal buildings are about accommodating civil servants, but they do a lot more than that. Traditionally they were designed to make a big impression and to reflect our ideals as a nation. They were built to last as public landmarks and monuments and they really represented the federal presence in towns and cities across the country. They were also designed to demonstrate high standards of design and construction, and they often showcased some of our best architects. In short, we would say that they represent a legacy that belongs to all taxpayers.

If you're not familiar with this study, called Crown Assets: The Architecture of the Department of Public Works, I would really encourage you to have a look at it. I can certainly make it available to the committee. It really looks at the great architectural legacy of the Department of Public Works.

I would encourage you to consider the example set by Public Works' equivalent in the U.S., the General Services Administration. Like Public Works, GSA has had to deal with the rationalizing of their inventory, and they have sold buildings, but in the process of doing that, they've also recognized that some federal buildings have not only a monetary value but a cultural value, and that they are part of a legacy held in public trust. GSA's first study about grappling with its inventory was called Held in Public Trust.

GSA has systematically exploited and benefited from the public relations potential of their legacy buildings, their special architectural buildings, through a number of programs that they use strategically to generate good news stories and to connect citizens with the federal presence through great architecture. Again, I won't go into detail, but there are a number of programs where they've invested and highlighted the quality of their great historic buildings.

I also wanted to bring to your attention the U.S. federal government's "heritage first" policy, which increases the market demand for heritage buildings, both inside and outside government. Since 1996, all federal agencies are required to fill their accommodation needs by first turning to underutilized heritage buildings in their own portfolio or in the private sector.

That's a way to help make landmarks, not landfill. It ensures that the private sector responds by rehabilitating and purchasing historic buildings, knowing there might be a viable market for them. We urge government to follow GSA's example and treat its heritage buildings as assets worth retaining and investing in.

I could also tell you about a GSA study that actually showed operational costs for heritage buildings coming in at a lower cost than some modern office accommodations, for a number of reasons.

The second point I wanted to discuss is the risk posed by gaps in protection when buildings leave the federal inventory. While buildings are in federal ownership, heritage buildings are subject to the federal heritage buildings policy, which is deeply flawed, but it does provide a basic standard. It does require a certain level of scrutiny and review of any changes or the proposed sale of heritage buildings. That's completed by staff with expertise in heritage conservation. It really represents a certain degree of commitment to protecting the character of buildings throughout their life cycle.

How do you ensure that same scrutiny and protection will continue once the building leaves federal hands? Fundamentally we believe the only effective strategy for protecting heritage buildings through changes in ownership is by protective covenants registered on title.

Current disposal practice, according to the Treasury Board “Guide to the Management of Real Property”, requires the government to make best efforts toward protection, but it does not require a covenant or some other form of statutory protection as a condition of sale. And it's our understanding that two of the three heritage buildings that were sold as part of the first batch in August do not have protective covenants registered on title. Without such protection, the risk is that these buildings will be inappropriately altered over time in ways that would compromise their heritage value and their design, and that even demolition could occur. We've actually seen that in some cases.

In closing, we have a couple of recommendations we'd like to bring to you. The first one is that before considering disposal, government give due consideration to the fact that some federal buildings have cultural and symbolic value and that they really are part of the national legacy that should continue to be held in public trust.

Secondly, we would encourage you to consider enacting statutory protection for federal historic places in the form of the long-anticipated proposed Canada historic places act. That should include statutory protection and maintenance standards for federally owned and regulated historic places; heritage first provisions, as I described to you, which exist in the U.S., that would promote the reuse of existing buildings in a sustainable way; and finally, the requirement for protective covenants registered on title for architecturally and historically significant buildings sold out of the inventory.

Thank you very much.