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.