Yes, absolutely, Chair.
You know, last week I wasn't here. I missed two very important meetings, I think, in this committee. I was in England as part of a Commonwealth delegation. I was participating at the Westminster buildings in London, England, where you really get to understand and appreciate the heritage sites and how well they're maintained. You see the plaques from the 1800s. You see the statues from the time democracy was first established and Westminster was established in London, England.
I couldn't help but compare that with our heritage sites here in Canada. As part of the Commonwealth delegation, earlier this year I went to the Ontario legislature to see how they're dealing with the maintenance and upkeep of their legislative buildings in terms of including new traditions while preserving old traditions as part of the heritage and as part of what represents our democracy in our country and our province. That delegation looking at the Ontario legislature also included members of provincial parliaments from all across the country. They shared their experiences in how they preserve their heritage sites and how they ensure that they are inclusive in a way that maintains not only the culture and the heritage and the history of who they are and what they are and what they represent but also embraces new cultures and new traditions in accordance with how our democracies are evolving.
It's really interesting, Chair, that at the Commonwealth in London, I did ask one of the staff there how much they spent in the regular upkeep of all their heritage buildings. Obviously, they're quite elaborate and quite beautiful and very, very well maintained. The gentleman gave me this reply: “MP Khalid, they are well worth the money we spend. We maintain them very regularly. That's for efficiency purposes. We don't let them crumble, because they are part of our history. They are part of who we are as Londoners and as part of the U.K. and the Commonwealth. It is well worth the money we spend.”
When I asked him if the citizenry had any objection to that, he said absolutely not, because people know and understand the value of maintaining that heritage and that history.
When we had that meeting here, we heard from the NCC about how we can endeavour not only to ensure that we are preserving our history and our culture and are working with Canadians to ensure that we're being inclusive with all of that maintenance, but also that we talk about how we can be more efficient.
We've heard stories and reports about how 24 Sussex, for example, is completely uninhabitable. I think we as parliamentarians, as part of our job and our role, have an obligation to ensure that our history and our heritage and our culture are maintained and that we are spending money efficiently. A dollar spent today saves us from spending two dollars tomorrow on the exact same thing.
I think this study, with these amendments that Ms. Shanahan has proposed, is actually a pretty decent one for us to enter into. How can we can make sure that we are being efficient? How can we make sure that we are preserving our democracy? These heritage sites are part of who we are as Canadians.
I really don't think, Chair, that anywhere in the world would have any objection to spending that kind of money, but I do take the point that colleagues across this table have raised, which is that it needs to be efficient.
Again, I want to support Ms. Shanahan's amendment to the main motion. Yes, we need to preserve, but we also need to find efficiencies. I'm looking forward to working with colleagues to find that synergy between the two.