Public Accounts Committee on May 2nd, 2019

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

After all, that is a historical reconstruction. Globally, there are not many historical reconstructions like it. We are talking about one-fifth of the original town—and I look forward to the remaining four-fifths being built. The reconstruction goes back to 1968, which is pretty old. That's tremendous.

[Michael Nadler]

Yes, it's tremendous. We actually have a number of small projects for that site. That said, you are correct—a number of Canada's historic sites are threatened by climate change, and Louisbourg is one of them.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Okay.

I would now like to talk about lighthouses and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I'll provide an example of a situation in my area, but it applies everywhere. Recently, a lighthouse was transferred. There were less than half a dozen lighthouses left from the post-Confederation era. The city of Dalhousie acquired one last year. Everyone was happy. It was repaired a bit before the transfer. The lighthouse was built in 1871, if my memory serves me correctly. It was one of the first five or six lighthouses built after Confederation.

I gather that, once the lighthouse is transferred—and in this case, it was transferred to a non-profit organization—you're responsible for its maintenance. Is that correct?

[Kevin Stringer]

There are terms and conditions in a transfer. At the moment we have 30 that have been transferred, designated, and 94 that are being petitioned, that we're talking to groups about.

There is a process. We provide a grant to the group when they take it over. They take over the responsibilities. Some of the terms and conditions include that they must make it available to the public for a further 10 years, but they take over the responsibilities for those areas with some commitments to ensure that it's maintained going forward.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Do I understand that for those kinds of lighthouses there is no responsibility given to the department when they are conveyed to the group or whatever association?

[Kevin Stringer]

That is correct.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Okay.

Thank you. You're very patient. I have only 15 seconds left, which doesn't give me enough time to continue. Thank you for being here and for your professionalism.

[The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault.

It is now Mr. Kelly's turn.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you.

This report, beginning on page 1, really is quite troubling because this report begins by pointing out that in 2003 the Auditor General found that federal heritage properties were at risk. It went on to talk about a number of problems. At that time, in 2003, Canadian Heritage and Parks Canada agreed to strengthen the legal framework to conserve heritage properties. They agreed to work with the Treasury Board of Canada to define what type of information to collect and how to appropriately assess and report on the conditions.

Then, four years later, in 2007, the Auditor General found that it didn't happen. Here we are another 12 years later finding out again the shortcomings.

When departments have to come back repeatedly following these kinds of reports, it's troubling to Canadians. The departments here have accepted the findings of the Auditor General. Canadians would ask, how do we have any confidence, with the assurances we're going to receive today, that we're not going to be back here in two years, three years, five years, 10 years hearing the same concerns raised again?

Mr. Nadler, please explain why we are here in 2019 hearing the same problems that have been identified over time.

[Michael Nadler]

Let me respond for Parks Canada, and then my colleagues might want to respond for their own departments.

You're absolutely right. Successive audits found that for Parks Canada, significant investment was required to address a decline in a number of our historic buildings and our historic sites. In fact, we knew from our own analyses that a number of our assets—we're an agency managing 17,000 assets across the country, many of them important transportation assets—were in decline.

Beginning with budget 2015, so fiscal year 2014-15, and then again in budget 2017 and then most recently in budget 2019, successive governments have been helping us to invest in the restoration of those assets.

We are now managing a program of work in the order of $3.5 billion to restore heritage assets, as well as a broader suite of assets in the agency's portfolio. That work is absolutely critical to our mandate and to our ongoing success as an agency.

With regard to the other elements found in the audit, we had excellent information on the state of our heritage assets at the local level. The gap for us was the list at the national level. We are working now to permanently fix that and expect that to be in place by the fall of 2019.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

The problem of data, which has plagued many other departments and has been a familiar refrain at this committee is, again, nothing new.

Your opening statement conveyed an impression to me that, again, in the face of another Auditor General's report, the third one in 16 years, your department was scrambling to get caught up on doing work that it had promised to do in 2003 and 2007.

Why was the data not complete and compiled if this is, again, a known problem? This isn't a question of having the resources to preserve but just one of actually tracking what properties exist and what properties require resources for preservation.

[Michael Nadler]

Parks Canada's 33 business units across the country had up-to-date information on the state of their heritage buildings. The gap was in amassing that data on a sufficiently quick basis to serve the needs of the Auditor General's analysis.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

All right.

I'll let the other departments respond to the broader questions of why we are dealing with this for the third time in 16 years, why there has not been consistent attention paid to this, and what explanation they can bring to this committee.

This committee is where accountability is demanded for resources that have been committed by the Government of Canada, and when we hear about any problem that has been identified already coming back here, this is troubling to Canadians.

Go ahead, please.

[Jody Thomas]

In the case of National Defence, we actually have the data. We haven't always been able to say that about every program, but we do have the data with regard to our infrastructure.

We have 20,000 buildings across the country. We have 11,000 works—jetties, runways and roads—and the total value of our assets is about $26 billion.

In our case, the criticism in 2007 was that we were not prioritizing the preservation of heritage properties, and that essentially came down to a question of budget.

Our conservation efforts going forward will come down to a question of budget. Of the 20,000 buildings, 292 are heritage buildings. We have a plan to assess them. We do it every five years on a cyclical basis, 20% a year, and we will finish the last 20% outstanding from this audit this year.

The outstanding question for Defence from 2007 and from this audit is about prioritization and investment. Keeping runways that are functional, keeping jetties for current ships functional and investing in buildings that are being used will have to be our priority. The assurance that conservation needs will be prioritized will be on a case-by-case basis, dependent on budget.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Fair enough.

Go ahead first, and I might come back on that.

[Kevin Stringer]

For Fisheries and Oceans, the issue of basic tracking is an issue, and we get the concern of the committee.

For us, there were really three things. We want to give the committee assurance. We know what heritage buildings we have and what heritage sites we have. The challenge with the database was three things for us.

In some cases, it was listed as something on DFO's database and listed with a different name or title on the FHBRO database. Second, there were heritage lighthouses. There are 30 that were designated, and 94 that are petitioned to be designated. There were all lumped in as designated. Third, there was one that was listed as ours, but it had been divested. They were these types of things.

In terms of improving the situation, we are serious about improving the situation. It is basic stuff, and we get that. We've had, as part of our comprehensive review process, about a doubling of the investment in our real property programming and a doubling of the FTEs that are on this, so we're confident we're going to get it right. We've already cleaned up that part of the database, and we have a broader effort for our 6,600 sites across the country.

[The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Thank you very much, Mr. Stringer.

Now we go to Mr. Sarai for seven minutes.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you.

Maybe I could ask first—and feel free, whoever wants to jump in—what Parks Canada's role is through the federal heritage buildings review office and what gets considered for the federal heritage buildings designation.

[Michael Nadler]

Our specialist is Genevieve. We brought her to answer just exactly that type of question.

[Genevieve Charrois, Director, Cultural Heritage Policies, Parks Canada Agency]

The federal heritage buildings review office is managed out of Parks Canada. It's targeted to look at federal properties. Everything that is federally owned comes, after an age threshold of 40 years, to FHBRO for an assessment, an evaluation of the heritage character of the property. Then it goes through an evaluation process. A recommendation is made to the minister responsible for Parks Canada that the building is of heritage character or it is not proposed to be designated. The minister responsible for Parks Canada will designate the building.

A building can be designated under two levels. It can be recognized or classified. Classified buildings are the jewels of Canada, like the buildings here on the Hill. If a building is designated, then there are some elements of scrutiny that must be applied to them. We will look at the interventions that are done on those buildings to make sure that they are appropriate and compatible. It's either Parks Canada for classified buildings or the other departments responsible for their own federal heritage buildings. A building that is federally designated cannot be disposed of without coming to Parks Canada for a proper best-efforts review.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

What about if it's privately owned, if it's a society or a group that's been designated?

[Genevieve Charrois]

No, that's not for the federal heritage building category. You may have a building that is owned by a private individual that could go through a process of being designated but under another process, which is national historic site designation. That is another process under the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

What I want to know is, when that's been done, who is responsible for those sites?

[Genevieve Charrois]

The owner is responsible.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Can Parks intervene if they're not complying with their responsibilities?