Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand the importance of the motion and the amendment.
The original motion focuses on a garage that cost $8 million and is located on the site of an old barn. Is that cost due to the time it took to build it? Is it because of the number of subcontractors? It cannot be argued that the cost is due to the heritage aspect of the garage, as that was not taken into account at all. In fact, the photos show a building further away that has preserved its heritage aspect.
Personally, I have absolutely nothing against spending $8 million on a building if the craftspeople chosen to do the work respect its original character. As Ms. Khalid said, we have to preserve this type of building's historical side.
However, I find it quite surprising to spend $8 million on a garage with an elevator, concrete and checker plate. So I understand that my colleagues from the original study want to focus specifically on that aspect in order to understand what happened and to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
I also understand the need to include in a budget the costs of restoring heritage buildings and their daily maintenance. I also understand the need to calculate how much it would cost per year if it was decided to act preventively rather than reactively.
Frankly, I am very surprised to see that this is not already the case and that heritage buildings are not better maintained, better protected and better regulated. For many years, there has been talk about renovating the Prime Minister's residence, but things are being let go, regardless of the party in power. This has been going on for decades. If I remember correctly, when Stephen Harper was in power, it seems to me that it cost about $180,000 to renovate the kitchen at the Prime Minister's residence. It wasn't even the main kitchen, but rather a secondary kitchen. Everything had to be redone: cabinets, electricity and plumbing. Heaven knows, and the devil may guess, that when you start opening up the walls of a heritage building, there are never-ending problems. Costs are rising astronomically because there has been no prevention.
So I understand my two colleagues' objective concerning this. However, I wonder whether it should be part of the same motion. The objective is more or less the same.
On the one hand, we are trying to understand how expenses could have gotten out of hand so much as to go up to $8 million for a checker plate building. On the other hand, we are trying to understand how prevention can save us money.
Is it prevention in the case of the Prime Minister's residence? No, we are at the stage where the disaster must be managed. Does that mean that everything will have to be demolished and rebuilt, while respecting the original character and making improvements? Apparently, it wasn't a very functional building. I wouldn't know, as I've never been there.
I think we should instead make two separate motions, since the objectives are not exactly the same. So I suggest that we make two different motions, since the topics are similar, but not really interrelated.