Public Accounts Committee on May 2nd, 2019

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

Mr. Nadler, we will have to leave that to you.

[Michael Nadler]

Sure.

I think part of the assessment is what is the appropriate duration. One hundred, 50, 70, all of them may in a sense be arbitrary unless they are accompanied by good, solid evaluation criteria that are focused on the heritage value of the property.

Age is only really one dimension of the consideration.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor] of properties.

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

Thank you, Mr. Nadler.

[Michael Nadler]

Yes, absolutely. As my colleagues have mentioned, you can have a very old building that actually has very limited heritage value, or a younger building that has very high heritage value. It's really important to ensure that what we're assessing is the actual heritage value of the property.

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

Thank you very much.

We go back to Mr. Kelly for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

For the departments that we have here, there is a real difference between Parks Canada, whose purpose is the preservation and conservation of things like buildings and monuments, and other departments. For the others, this is a by-product of simply accumulating assets over time and not something calculated by a particular department. They just wake up one day and find they've had an old building designated as a heritage place.

Of course, there are departments that are not here today, too. We identified Fisheries and Oceans and Defence merely because of the numbers, but there are other departments not represented here today that face the same issue.

I note in the report that the finding in paragraph 2.49 talked about how Defence and Fisheries and Oceans do not differentiate in how they earmark their money between heritage and non-heritage properties. Can you maybe comment on this? The point of its being a heritage property is that there are added complications to preserving a building and a priority to do so, in fact. With a non-heritage building, you're free to do whatever you wish with it, but non-heritage buildings have to be preserved, too. Deferred maintenance on a building just adds further costs later on. We need look no further than the Hill here to see what decades of neglect will do.

Perhaps comment on this. To both of these departments, do you plan to differentiate and budget differently for this, or are you going to continue to merely treat assets the same and to do a better job of keeping data on your requirements?

[Jody Thomas]

It's a complex subject, there's absolutely no doubt. As I've said, the portfolio of our infrastructure is worth about $26 billion. Certainly, we don't have the kind of money we need to maintain to the standard that we should a portfolio that large. We will continue to try to focus on ensuring that heritage buildings are conserved and maintained, but our priorities will always be health and safety and compliance and operations, as we said.

I will note that, over the last three years, we have spent $220 million on maintaining specific heritage buildings that have come up in the list: Halifax North Park Armoury, the Wolseley Barracks in London and Admiralty House at the Naval Museum in Halifax. We are investing in heritage buildings, and all of these buildings we're investing in are in active use. Of the entire portfolio, only 3% of buildings, including heritage buildings, aren't being used. We invest in an armoury, and we invest in a runway, and it's where it comes up in the priority.

[Kevin Stringer]

I have a similar response, but I'd add a couple of points. First, similar to what you've heard, we are driven by our core mandate. In terms of where real property monies go, in terms of life-cycle management, in terms of safety and security for staff, etc., we're talking about people who work in our science labs and people who work in hatcheries. Those are operational requirements. Some of those are heritage buildings; some of those are not.

Secondly, when it comes to heritage buildings, we know where they are. We know what they are. We know the care they need. We have guidance from Parks Canada about how that is different and how to manage that, so that is always a factor for us.

The third thing I would say is, despite those two points and consistent with the point that was raised earlier, it takes up a lot of space in the department. There is a focus on some of those heritage buildings. Local, regional staff in particular, are committed to working with local stakeholders. There is an enormous effort in terms of divestiture in making sure that those are protected by people in the local area who care enormously about them. There's a grants program to assist them to be able to take over the responsibility for the heritage site.

It does get care and attention, but at the end of the day, it is the core operational department's mandate that drives our decisions on real property.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chen.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

If I had to venture a guess, I would say that most Canadians would be quite shocked to hear what has been shared in this committee today, and to read the Auditor General's report. Most Canadians would find a lot of pride in knowing there are sites of national importance, and heritage buildings that are identified as important to Canada and to Canadians, and they would be shocked to hear that these sites and buildings are not being properly conserved.

I want to pick up on a few points and, quite frankly, I don't know where to start, because there's just too much here that I want to look into.

When it comes to, for example, the two departments, where, as one of my colleagues pointed out, maintenance decisions were based on operational needs, I certainly can appreciate that if a building is being used, you need to consider first and foremost the health and safety of the users. With that said, it sounds to me like departments are left on their own to decide how much they invest or not in conserving heritage properties. It sounds to me like there's a federal policy that really only mandates that heritage buildings are kept by those particular departments if they are required for operations.

Can the Auditor General's office give me a better indication of who is ultimately responsible, or mandated to be responsible, for conserving heritage sites that are identified as such? To me, it makes no sense to have a site designated a heritage building, or one of national importance, and then to do nothing to conserve it. Why bother?

[Susan Gomez]

Once the building is designated—for example, if Defence has a designated building—it is National Defence's responsibility to take care of it. They can consult with Parks Canada for advice if they want to do renovations. However, at the end of the day, it is within their portfolio, and they are the ones who take care of it.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

They're the ones to take care of it. Under the Financial Administration Act, they must submit buildings that are over 40 years old to be evaluated and considered. Once a building is designated heritage, they can then decide whether or not to make sure it's properly conserved and maintained. Is that correct?

[Susan Gomez]

Well, it's for operational requirements. As has been mentioned previously, they maintain a building if they're going to use it for their operations. They take into consideration the heritage aspects of it, but it is their responsibility.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

It was mentioned earlier that over successive governments, there really was not enough investment into ensuring that the long-term capital needs of these buildings are being provided for. Can you mention the investments that have been made most recently, and whether the Auditor General's office was able to determine if those were sufficient for the long-term needs of these buildings and sites?

[Susan Gomez]

We didn't look at whether there was sufficient funding. As we mentioned in the report, Parks Canada had some money provided, but there was a deficit, so they weren't able to address all the backlog. We didn't look at whether they had sufficient funds.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

I did hear that money was a major concern, as has been reiterated by Mr. Christopherson. I just want to read paragraph 2.76 again, in the conclusion of this report:

We concluded that Parks Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and National Defence did not work sufficiently to conserve the heritage value and extend the physical life of federal heritage properties. They did not have a full picture of their heritage properties; for example, information on the condition of their heritage properties was not current.

What is the solution here? It might be a rhetorical question, but I'm trying to figure it out here. They're working hard to catch up with having an understanding of what properties are under their department. Simultaneously, they're the ones responsible. This problem has been looked at since 2003, with the first report, the 2007 report and now this report. It just feels like déjà vu.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chen.

Now for the last word, as usual, you have three minutes, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, Mr. Stringer, I really appreciate your answers and your passion for your file. You know your file. You give enough push-back when we, especially me, go a little too far in not getting the facts right. It was very respectful and very forward-looking. I really appreciate your presence here today. You've done a good job. Thank you.

Only 3% are non-active on the Defence side, and as somebody who has an armoury and is very proud of it, I'm.... You could have easily held up a paper and said, “You know, we just put x number of dollars into Hamilton Centre”, because I've probably benefited, and there are probably letters on record from me saying, “Hey, we need this kind of work done”, and it comes under operational more than heritage.

I get all of this, which is why I think we need to do that larger overview. I have two really brief questions. One is just a factual question. Is there any jurisdiction or any money put in for aboriginal heritage preservation, or is that all left to the other department?

[Rob Chambers]

We don't have a dedicated program for indigenous heritage, but we have a lot of ongoing relationships with a number of indigenous communities where we do engage in that kind of partnership. For example, we're working with Treaty 1 first nations in Winnipeg with the Kapyong Barracks on an indigenous military history project.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Were it to cross over to your responsibilities.... But what about just ponying money right up front for heritage? Do we recognize anywhere that there's aboriginal heritage that goes beyond what's around us right now?

Mr. Nadler, quickly, and then I have one last question.

[Michael Nadler]

Yes. There are a number of national historic sites across the country that reflect indigenous heritage. Some of those are managed by Parks Canada, and others by indigenous communities or other—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Those are on their lands?

[Michael Nadler]

Yes, they are on their lands and on reserve lands—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks. It's an important part of our history.

My last question is open-ended. Drawing on my experience.... I've been here before, municipally, provincially and now federally, and it's always the same thing. The community wants to save them; the citizens want to save them; and the local government or the government—in whatever order—just doesn't have the means.

Does it make any practical sense for any of the political parties, or all of them, to put forward a platform for some kind of coordination in the next election? With all due respect to provincial jurisdiction and municipal rights—and again I've been there, and nobody embraces those more than I do—the buildings that we're talking about are in the same place, whether we're talking about the municipal government, the provincial government or the federal government. The building is still in the same place. It's the same one building.

Is there any chance that we could have national, coordinated—not forcing anybody, and respecting rights—efforts so that all three entities that want to preserve a given entity could partner in that? Does that exist right now and it's just not working, or is what I'm suggesting just not practical?