HERI Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 1, 2004
| ¿ | 0910 |
 |
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)) |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser (Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada) |
| ¿ | 0915 |
| ¿ | 0920 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, CPC) |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger |
| ¿ | 0925 |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
Ms. Ginette Moreau (Principal Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada) |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
| ¿ | 0930 |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
Ms. Ginette Moreau |
| ¿ | 0935 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| ¿ | 0940 |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Hon. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.) |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
Hon. Paul Bonwick |
| ¿ | 0945 |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
Hon. Paul Bonwick |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP) |
| ¿ | 0950 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Ms. Wendy Lill |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
Ms. Ginette Moreau |
| ¿ | 0955 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC) |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
Mr. Jim Abbott |
| À | 1000 |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
Ms. Ginette Moreau |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Hon. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.) |
| À | 1005 |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
Hon. John Harvard |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
Hon. John Harvard |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
| À | 1010 |
|
Hon. John Harvard |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
Ms. Ginette Moreau |
| À | 1015 |
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
Mme Ginette Moreau |
|
The Vice-Chair (Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| À | 1020 |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
Mme Ginette Moreau |
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
| À | 1025 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Mr. Gary Schellenberger |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
| À | 1030 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Hon. Paul Bonwick |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Ms. Wendy Lill |
| À | 1035 |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Ms. Wendy Lill |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Hon. Paul Bonwick |
| À | 1040 |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
|
Ms. Sheila Fraser |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay) |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, April 1, 2004
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¿ 
(0910)
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)): Bonjour, tout le monde. Je souhaite la bienvenue à nos invités. Welcome to everyone.
I believe we have an important issue to discuss here today, and we're very pleased, Madam Fraser, to have you here with some of your staff.
We're going to discuss chapter 6 of the report. I believe there are certain parts dealing with the National Library,
[Translation]
and the National Archives, which are of special interest to the committee today.
I give you the floor so that you can make your presentation. Then I'm sure there will be many interesting questions.
[English]
I'm sure all the members are very enthused about asking questions on different aspects of that report.
[Translation]
Over to you, Ms. Fraser.
[English]
Ms. Sheila Fraser (Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Merci, Monsieur le président.
We thank you for this opportunity to discuss our November 2003 report, in particular chapter 6 on the protection of cultural heritage in the federal government.
With me today are Ginette Moreau, principal, and Richard Gaudreau, director, who are responsible for this audit.
Our objective in this audit was to obtain an overall picture of the federal government's protection of cultural heritage. It is the first time an audit office like ours has adopted a horizontal approach to this issue. As you probably know, Canada's legacy and heritage is one of the key areas I will emphasize during my term as Auditor General.
[Translation]
Our audit focussed on built, archival and published heritage and some collections of federal departments. We examined the relevant protection regimes and management practices of the main organizations responsible for heritage protection: the Department of Canadian Heritage, the National Archives of Canada, the National Library of Canada, the Parks Canada Agency, the Treasury Board Secretariat and others. We did not examine the four national museums of Canada and their affiliated museums because they are subject under the Financial Administration Act to special examinations every five years.
Our audit revealed that cultural heritage under the protection of the federal government is exposed to serious risks of loss. For example, National Archives has difficulty identifying and collecting documents of historic value because first, it has not yet developed the tools it needs to acquire efficiently those government documents that may be of historic interest and archival importance; and second, departments have given little attention to information management in recent years.
More than 90 percent of the collections of the National Library of Canada are housed in buildings that do not meet current standards for temperature and humidity.
More than two-thirds of national historic sites administered by the Parks Canada Agency and federal heritage buildings are showing signs of deterioration. This will have to be addressed in the next two to five years to prevent their closure to the public, rapid deterioration of the sites, or the permanent loss of the sites' historically significant components. The needed restoration work ranges from re-roofing buildings to stabilizing the foundations of structures and monuments.
¿ (0915)
[English]
Once a piece of our history is lost, it is lost forever. If nothing is done, generations to come may not have access to key parts of their heritage or may have to bear higher costs to preserve them.
A number of factors are responsible for the difficulties we identified: the continual growth of heritage assets, a decrease in resources over the past few years, inadequate information about the condition of heritage assets, inadequate facilities, weaknesses in the protection practices of some organizations, and weaknesses in the legal frameworks for protection.
Adding resources on an ad hoc basis and improving management practices will not be sufficient to guarantee the protection of cultural heritage in the long term. The current protection regimes have reached their limits. The time has come to adopt a more strategic and global approach to the protection of cultural heritage, because our heritage continues to increase while our resources are limited. We must rethink how to do things and even what elements of heritage are worthy of preserving. An overall review must take place.
There is a need as well to clarify federal organizations' responsibilities and accountabilities for the management of government information, the management of collections, and the protection of national historic sites and federal heritage buildings not owned by Parks Canada Agency. In effect, the agency is not responsible for the protection of the majority of built heritage held by other departments, other public jurisdictions, and owners in the private sector. Thus it is important that the protection of built heritage be included in the overall review.
The Department of Canadian Heritage can and must exercise stronger leadership in the search for a more strategic and global approach to heritage protection. The role of the department is to support the Minister of Canadian Heritage in the development of heritage policies and allocation of resources within the portfolio. The role of the department is also to support the minister's assurance to Parliament that the strategic direction of the organizations in the portfolio uphold the government's goals and priorities.
[Translation]
Currently, the National Archives, the National Library, and the Parks Canada Agency are having difficulty fulfilling the heritage protection aspects of their legislative mandates. The government needs to ensure a better balance between its mandate for heritage protection and the resources it makes available for the purpose. This would foster more responsible administration and accountability by the federal players and would also provide greater assurance about the protection of heritage assets.
We've recommended that the government review the objectives and protection and the available means, with the participation of public and private partners; reinforce the regimes for protection; and ensure that federal organizations responsible for heritage protection improve their management practices.
All of the responsible organizations, including the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board Secretariat, accepted the recommendations in our Report. However, they will succeed in implementing the recommendations only if a shift to a culture of heritage protection takes place within the federal government, and cooperation among all entities involved is strengthened. Effective management tools need to be developed as soon as possible, particularly to identify and collect national archival records and obtain information on the nature and the condition of our heritage.
¿ (0920)
[English]
The management of heritage protection is fragmented. The recent transfer of responsibility for the Parks Canada Agency to the Minister of the Environment underlines the need for more concerted and better coordinated efforts within the protection regime. Your committee could play an active role in supporting federal heritage organizations in implementing our recommendations and in strengthening the overall protection regime.
More specifically, the committee could ask the Department of Canadian Heritage what action it will take to undertake a global review of the results the government wants to achieve for heritage protection and the means of protection available; complete the development of the strategic framework for heritage that it started some three years ago; and improve the information on the nature and the condition of our heritage and develop better performance indicators, with the participation of entities involved.
The committee could also ask the National Library of Canada how it plans to improve information on the condition of its collections and evaluate alternative infrastructure options.
The committee could also ask the National Archives of Canada how it plans to modernize its regime of records disposition authorities, develop efficient tools to acquire federal archival records, protect electronic records, and implement with the collaboration of the Treasury Board Secretariat the new management of government information policy.
We thank you, Mr. Chair, for your attention. We'll be pleased to answer any questions the committee might have.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay): Merci, Madame Fraser. Thank you very much for your presentation.
Members are ready for questioning. Mr. Schellenberger.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger (Perth—Middlesex, CPC): Thank you.
Again, thank you, Ms. Fraser, for being here today.
I'm relatively new to this committee, but I have been very interested in the National Archives and the National Library, as we have been trying to put those two entities together. Your report provides a very long list of reasons for why the preservation of Canada's cultural heritage is at risk. In your view, what should be the top priorities at the Department of Canadian Heritage, at the National Archives, and at the National Library?
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The major point we are trying to stress here is that the system has reached its limits. There needs to be a rethinking of the whole heritage collection policies and procedures. I think there really needs to be an overall strategic exercise done to determine or rethink what is it that we actually want to collect and preserve, what resources do we need to do that, and do we need to change some of our mechanisms underneath to actually do that. But I think it's really a question that we have to try to bring into balance the mandates of these organizations and the resources and their ability to meet those mandates.
There is at the moment a significant gap, which we really think is going to require a serious look at what we are collecting and are trying to protect. I think we all have to recognize that, as each day goes by, there are new elements being added to all of these collections, so the gap is only going to increase over time.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger: Just as a supplementary to that, then you need to prioritize what should be under these mandates. Sometimes the government suggests, this is what we want we want you to do, and this is how much we give you. You have to keep expanding what the government wants you to do with smaller funds. Is that the case?
Ms. Sheila Fraser: That is correct.
But if I may, I think it goes beyond simply the funding. There needs to be more strategic direction across these many, many players in this field. We believe the Department of Canadian Heritage needs to take the lead in bringing all of these players together to try to determine the strategic priorities and vision, and then to rethink within the different organizations how they're actually going to carry this out.
Mr. Gary Schellenberger: We've been involved in the last while in putting the library and the archives together. Your report notes that “the creation of Library and Archives Canada will not be sufficient to resolve the preservation problems” faced by the National Archives or the National Library. Assuming Bill C-8 receives royal assent, what in your view should be the first steps taken to ensure that preservation issues are given the attention they require?
¿ (0925)
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll ask Madame Moreau, perhaps, to give a little more detail on some of the questions of the merger.
[Translation]
Ms. Ginette Moreau (Principal Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Affiliation: Ms. Ginette Moreau (Principal Director, Office of the Auditor General of Canada) Good morning, Mr. Chair.
If you're thinking more precisely of what the main priorities of the National Library and National Archives should be regarding the conservation and protection of their collections, I will say that they have already undertaken a study on the risks involved. That study, which concerns the management of their collections, is currently under way. I believe this is a good approach in that it will enable them to gain a better understanding of the state and nature of their collections. In view of the risks that each of the collections may currently be exposed to, a plan will be adopted so that protective measures designed for the collections are implemented.
As for the question regarding the National Archives, you are no doubt aware that three major players are currently involved: the Treasury Board, the departments that manage the documents and the National Archives. Through their identification system, they make it possible to identify the documents that departments may dispose of and those that must be transferred to the National Archives.
For the National Archives people, it is essential that they agree with the Treasury Board and develop an implementation plan so that the Treasury Board's new policy on the management of documents in the public service is implemented as efficiently as possible. That policy was issued last April, and much remains to be done before it is implemented. That should be among the priorities, in view of the fact that the tools designed to enable the departments must be developed and validated.
In our opinion, these are two major steps that must be taken on a priority basis.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay): Thank you.
We will move to Madame Gagnon.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Fraser, for being here today.
You referred to what we want to conserve. On that subject, I'm thinking of the significant delays facing the archival community. One example comes to mind. It has been announced that Mr. Chrétien will be given a $1 million tax credit. I'm not opposed to the idea, but we must determine what we want to preserve in all those archives and whether what he deposits may generate a high degree of interest.
In view of the duties Mr. Chrétien has performed, this is property which belongs above all to the Parliament of Canada. There may be handwritten notes. However, the extent of the archives he has deposited will require a significant amount of work, which will result in costs.
However, we know that money is in short supply. Since 1990, the National Archives budget has been cut by approximately $10 million, and its purchasing power by some $20 million. I wonder whether it is appropriate to grant a $1 million tax credit for documents most of which belong mainly to the government. It was in the context of his duties that Mr. Chrétien was able to gain access to those documents.
Couldn't we review this massive archival deposit with a view to lightening the load of the National Archives?
Ms. Sheila Fraser: The question Ms. Gagnon raises is related to the tax laws. When an individual makes a gift in kind, such as papers, a valuation is made and a tax receipt is granted. We obviously didn't audit that transfer. If I understand correctly, it involved personal papers of historic value. Mr. Chrétien was obviously a member of Parliament for a long period of time. A valuation was made, I assume, of the historic value of his papers when they were transferred to the National Archives of Canada. That's why it was a credit or a receipt. It's like a receipt for a charitable gift, if you will.
The question our report raises is whether the National Archives of Canada is able to value and catalogue all the documents it has received, if we ultimately want to make them accessible to the public, to researchers and to others. We noted that there are delays, which in some cases are decades long, in analyzing ministers' documents, papers of certain ministers which date back some 30 years, which have not yet been analyzed and catalogued. So we must ask ourselves what we want to keep, what is most important, and what kind of access the public and certain researchers can have to these documents of historic value for Canadians.
¿ (0930)
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would like to ask you a second question. You also referred to the presentation that has been done of the heritage. Would that be one of the reasons? I know that the budget has been cut, but wouldn't there now be a desire to grant resources, particularly in order to present the heritage?
I'm looking at the mission of the National Archives and the National Library of Canada. This desire to present our heritage has evolved over the years. In view of the fact that we are unable to be up to date in archiving terms, we have to see what kind of information will be circulating around the world. This is a very small part. How, for example, could we assure that presentation isn't the primary purpose of the National Archives of Canada? It appears that presentation is more important than archiving as such. Can you give me any figures on presentation? I tried to find some after you tabled your report in order to see what amounts were attributed. I asked the minister a question in the House of Commons. She answered that she had set aside $15 million for libraries, but they were unable to say where that $15 million had been allocated. Was it to new Internet programs? I would like you to give us your opinion on the subject.
Ms. Sheila Fraser: I'm going to ask Ms. Moreau to give us more details on the figures. It is true that the role of the National Archives of Canada is not merely to conserve and protect. That role is important, but presentation and public access to all that information are also part of its role.
Ms. Ginette Moreau: Mr. Chair, over the past 10 years, for example, with the advent of computer technology, we have wanted to make the collections more accessible to all Canadians and have allocated certain resources to this heritage sector.
The museums have computerized and digitized their collections. As may be seen, there has always and will always be access to the National Library. The National Archives also invests a portion of its resources to make its documents accessible to Canadians. For example, there are documents on veterans. Veterans can now access information on the Internet, whereas that was not previously done.
So the government has made a move toward presentation and accessibility, which has resulted in a transfer of resources within certain organizations. Resources have been allocated to that, sometimes to the detriment of conservation and protection. On the acquisition side, there is continuing growth. The gap is still growing between the two. So there is a certain balance that must be struck between the two components of heritage management.
As to the $15 million to which the minister referred, that's the budget that was approved in order to acquire the former Zellers building in Gatineau, which will mainly be used to store the National Library collections currently at greatest risk and certain National Archives collections. It's not a presentation budget, but a budget allocated to facilities.
¿ (0935)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay): Mr. Lincoln.
[English]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Ms. Fraser, thank you very much for devoting your report to this issue, because I think it will have the effect of pushing the agenda forward--we hope. We ourselves on this committee, starting way back in 1999, have addressed the question of archives and the National Library in several recommendations because this problem is almost endemic. As you pointed out yourself, there are so many players that nobody is really in charge and somehow it's the orphan of the government in some ways, yet it's so important.
I looked, for instance, at some figures your report quoted where the National Library of Canada is saying--which it has said to us before--that it requires 5,000 square metres of space more to do its work now, and by 2015 it will require 17,000 square metres of space, which is huge. If you examine the cost of that, it's just massive. You mentioned also how the National Archives, just in private collections alone, has a backlog that would cost $14 million just to bring it up to date today.
As I travel to different places, I notice how much more funds are devoted to cultural institutions, in the countries of Europe especially. I'm wondering if you've ever done a study or if you think it would be worthwhile in the future to do a study to compare what we spend per capita on matters such as preservation of archives and our library responsibilities versus other countries in the world, especially the European ones in the G-7 that are comparable to us, to find out where we are. My guess would be that we are way down on the totem pole. I don't know, but it would be interesting. I was wondering if you have any idea.
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In our search in preparing this kind of report, we did not do that kind of benchmarking to get that kind of information. I think we know from some of our colleagues in other audit offices around the world that there are other countries that have the same kinds of problems and challenges Canada has, but we will certainly take that suggestion under advisement. It could be an interesting study to do, especially since the whole question of heritage and legacy is one of my five priorities for the office.
We will certainly consider that seriously, Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Thank you.
I have one last question. When you look at the details of the various players who are in place regarding the National Archives and the National Library, you cover a page and more. You get the Treasury Board Secretariat and Canadian Heritage, but also Parks and all the other ministries. You pointed out that Agriculture and Foreign Affairs, for instance, have huge collections themselves.
You suggest a strategic plan, which we had tried to push ourselves, to bring all these actors together and have a long-term vision. The big problem with this is that the leadership rests with Canadian Heritage, but in practical terms there are so many actors involved. Do you have any suggestions to make to us, on a practical basis, as to how this can converge into a comprehensive and focused action plan?
¿ (0940)
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Lincoln has asked an excellent question. I wish I had an excellent response to it.
Unfortunately, I think that the major difficulty, or certainly one of the major difficulties in this whole area, is the number of players, who have very fragmented responsibilities.
In the report, we indicate that we believe Canadian Heritage should be taking the lead, though, of course, they don't necessarily have all of the responsibilities and all of the mechanisms to be able to influence all of the other players--not only other federal departments and agencies, but also the private sector as well is an important player in all of this. We really think, though, that there needs to be a complete review of all of this on the roles and the responsibilities. I may be a little critical, but it does not appear to us that Canadian Heritage even recognizes that they have a lead responsibility in all of this.
I think it's important that somebody has to step up to say who is going to lead this effort if there is to be that coordinated approach. The way it's going now, it's not going to happen if someone doesn't step up to the plate.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay):
Merci. Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.
Mr. Bonwick.
Hon. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Through you, to Madam Fraser, thank you very much for taking time, not only today, but for getting your department to review this. I think this has been a front and centre issue for this committee for a number of years. I don't know if we can say that the Auditor General is an ally, but on this particular one I think it's clearly so.
It has raised several issues. My first one might actually be through to the chair or the clerk. Are we going to ask, at some point in time, at the very least, for the players within heritage to come forward and address some of these points?
Clearly, by way of your mandate, you're identifying legitimate concerns about the inefficiencies that are in place here. In that regard, I think that we need to have the department asking, what are you going to do about this?
It's terribly disturbing if in fact it's accurate that there's no strategic plan in place. We're talking about getting the numbers down, as we're talking about the total allocation of half a billion dollars. To not have some strategic planning in place, a five-year and ten-year plan, on how they're going to meet the needs...as Mr. Lincoln said, 17,000 square metres is a heck of a demand on the government, not only capital-wise but operational-wise,
I want to go a step further than Mr. Lincoln and ask about comparisons within other countries. Have you done or looked at any modelling on how the private sector may play a more aggressive role or a more positive role in this?
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In response first to Mr. Bonwick's comments, we are an ally, I would hope, of parliamentary committees. Our role is to provide you with the information that you require to be able to hold government to account, and we hope to inform you in your deliberations on some of these issues.
This audit is a particularly important one to me personally because it's the first time we have ever looked at this whole question on a horizontal basis. We believe as well that the committee and Parliament should be receiving more information on the overall state of these assets, what are the risks and how is the government addressing them, rather than simply, I guess, a passive management of them. So we think there needs to be more information.
We do not do the kind of modelling that Mr. Bonwick is suggesting. That would be more properly the role of the department, to do those kinds of analyses and to come forward with what would essentially be policy discussions and policy considerations. So we would not do that kind of modelling. We could do benchmarking with other countries, because that would remain factual, but to get into modelling would be beyond our mandate.
Hon. Paul Bonwick: If I may, you made a statement that it has basically “reached its limits.” So the department has reached its limits. I think we have to determine if in fact that is the case. Have they really adopted the kinds of efficiencies necessary where they have maximized what resources are provided for them? In other words, we have to simply inject more capital or come up with some creative solutions by way of the private sector.
I'm not convinced that within their own being they have maximized or reached their limits, that in fact, there may be some efficiencies that they simply.... If they haven't embarked on a strategic planning exercise, I think it's very difficult to determine whether they have or have not maximized their potential.
¿ (0945)
Ms. Sheila Fraser: I think the point we were trying to make in this audit is that, given the current regimes and the current mechanisms in place, government is not able to sustain that. There are significant backlogs everywhere. We're talking about some 30 years to analyze records and documents of ministers. We're talking about 90% of collections not being housed. I'm sure that the people from the library and archives, and others, would be much more eloquent in telling you about the kinds of difficulties they face.
I think we do make mention in the report that the government has to find new partners and new ways of doing things, in particular with the built heritage. A lot of the built heritage is in fact not controlled or owned by government. There have to be new ways of preserving this.
But there needs to be, first of all, a reflection as to what we actually want to preserve. We believe we cannot keep on with the current systems.
One example is that every day in this country, two copies of every newspaper are sent to the National Archives. The National Archives has difficulty trying to keep up with all the other documents, and yet every day we have two copies of every newspaper coming in the door. Do we still want to keep doing that? Is there a different way to do it?
Somebody needs to step back from it all and say, what do we want to preserve, what do we want to make accessible to the public, how are we going to do that? That reflection has started.
Madame Moreau mentioned the whole risk analysis that was going on in some of these, but it hasn't happened overall, and that really needs to take place.
Hon. Paul Bonwick: So the key words really are “strategic planning”.
I'll simply close out with this, if you are able to offer comment. Because of the complexity and the number of departments involved and the sharing of responsibility at this point in time, it is going to be a very time-consuming job to put forward a reasonable strategic plan. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the creation of a body of some type whereby the absolute focus of this body, task force, or whatever you want to refer to it as, is to come back within a reasonable timeframe with a report to cabinet saying “This is what you should be doing”, one that crosses all boundaries and is not simply focused on heritage.
If you could provide an opinion on that, I would be very interested.
Ms. Sheila Fraser: That is obviously one mechanism to be used that should be considered. It might give more focused attention to this question. I think my staff has told me that the last time there was a broad look at all of this was back in the early 1980s. We're almost 25 years later, so it may be time to do something like that. It would obviously be up to the committee to make that kind of recommendation, but I think it should be considered.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay): Thank you.
Madam Lill.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much for coming here today. It's unfortunate that this very important part of the report got kind of swept off the table in the public consciousness in the last several months, because it is incredibly important.
Just thinking about the archives receiving every one of the newspapers every single day and chronicling them is astounding. You kind of have a sense that we're a ship floating along, and we're just getting heavier and heavier. Unless we make some decisions, things are just going to get thrown out here and there because there's just no more room and people don't have the system set up to figure out what to keep.
You know that this committee has done three reports over the last seven years, and I've been part of them all, I'm happy to say. We've been nudging the Department of Canadian Heritage to really work on the issues of deterioration of items at the archives and the library.
In 2000, we talked about the need to do a planning process to examine long-term space and preservation needs. In our most recent report on broadcasting, we talked about the importance of ensuring that the archival footage of Canada's broadcasters doesn't get lost, because we know that even now much of that old stuff is disappearing.
In your report, you ask what is required. What you told us we should do is eloquent, and I want to suggest at the end that we frame a letter with all of your suggestions. But you say there will be no success in this endeavour until there is a shift to a culture of heritage protection within the federal government, and cooperation among entities involved.
I would like your opinion on whether you've actually seen a shift away from heritage protection. It seems to me that at some point we were doing this a lot better than we're doing it now. Can this shift be traced to money, cutbacks, or some kind of changes in mandates? I don't believe there have been changes in mandates. If we could see where the weakening on this file started, maybe we could start thinking about how to deal with it.
I would like to suggest that this committee use some of the very specific action items that the Auditor General has suggested and craft a letter to the heritage minister asking for answers. Mr. Bonwick suggested we have the committee come before us, but it seems to me that the first step is to get them to do some work and have some answers before they come before us. Then we will be able to hear about what steps they've taken on these issues that you've raised on that last section.
Could I table that, please?
¿ (0950)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay): I think we should deal with the invited guests here and then deal with our own business at this level, if you don't mind. If we have more questions for the invited guests, we should deal with them. Once they're gone, if we have to deal with other business we'll do it at that time.
Do you have any other questions? We still have a couple of minutes.
Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm waiting for an answer.
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I should make a couple of... I've been informed that I may have overstated the case of the newspapers, that it is in fact 10 newspapers each day, two copies of each one, that go to the archives. But still I think we can all agree it's a significant number.
Ms. Lill mentioned the broadcasting archives. While it is not, I believe, in this report, the committee may be aware that the CBC has undertaken a project on archives of broadcast tapes and transferring them to new mediums so that they can be preserved. I was fortunate enough to have a visit there, and members of the committee might be interested. It's a fascinating place to see how they're actually doing that, and it would be certainly very informative.
On the whole question of the shift in emphasis, we obviously didn't go back in time and try to look at that. I think, though, that in the work we do in, for instance, the museums when we do our financial audits and our special exams every five years, we see a very clear focus on the whole question of preservation, collections, and how they are managed. Generally that seems to be going well. Within the broader government, there seems to be less attention paid to it. I guess I would link it back to the earlier comments about there needing to be a lead player who kind of...it's like our conscience, in a way. There needs to be somebody who continually reminds us of it. I'm not sure that it's top of mind for most departments.
Perhaps Ms. Moreau would like to add some comments.
[Translation]
Ms. Ginette Moreau: Mr. Chair, have the resources for heritage protection been cut? I think we have to watch out here. When you look at the investment that has been made in the national museums over the past 20 years, you see that the objective of ensuring that the collections in the museums are well protected has been achieved.
On the other hand, some areas have not had all the attention they require, and our audit, which is based on risk, points to areas where protection is not what it should be. It points out that, with regard to the library, the built heritage, archives and even collections in the departments, little attention has been paid to these areas in recent years, and we don't see how the protection of the collections there will be guaranteed in the immediate future.
¿ (0955)
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay): We will go to Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): Thank you as well for your attention here today.
We seem to have struck a bit of a theme between Mr. Bonwick and Ms. Lill and now me. I was noticing in the research that was done that in June 2000--actually earlier than that--“A Sense of Place, A Sense of Being”,a report from here in June 1999, this committee recommended “That the Department of Canadian Heritage take immediate action to obtain additional resources and to establish a fund dedicated to the preservation of items of national significance that are in danger of being lost through deterioration”.That was in 1999.
Again this committee, in June 2000, which is now going on four years ago, recommended “That in conjunction with the National Librarian and the National Archivist, the Department of Canadian Heritage immediately initiate a planning process to examine long-term space and preservation needs of both the National Archives and the National Library”.
Then I come to your assessment in 2003-04. To sum up, it was the Auditor General's overall finding that “The National Archives of Canada has no assurance of obtaining all government records that are of historic interest and archival importance”.Furthermore,the organization again is “struggling with a situation outside of its control that is growing and becoming more complex”. Obviously there is a resource problem.
Then I come to the fact that in response to this recommendation--bearing in mind this is three, four, five years after this was drawn to their attention by a committee that is supposed to be doing work and drawing these things to their attention--the Department of Canadian Heritage has agreed to work with the Treasury Broad Secretariat to ensure that Treasury Board policies are appropriate to the management and protection of heritage collections.
Should we take any feeling of comfort from the fact that they've decided to agree to work with the Treasury Board Secretariat?
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, I can only tell you that I think Auditors General, by nature, are optimists, and that we view the fact that the government agrees with the recommendations in a positive manner. The government has introduced this whole management of information policy, which is fairly recent and puts fairly onerous conditions on departments to start addressing the whole question of management of information. It will require, though, I believe, that additional resources be given to do it well.
As well, there is the whole question of the interface between the National Archives, their policies, and their abilities, and responsibilities, vis-à-vis other departments. The question is complex; working together is a first step. I would like to see more concrete action plans and implementation plans for many of these policies. I think we're suggesting that might be something the committee would want to ask the Treasury Board Secretariat in terms of how, overall within government, they are going to implement that policy and do they actually have a concrete plan to do it.
Mr. Jim Abbott: But along that line, you raised the point in your testimony this morning having to do with the fact that Parks Canada is now part of Environment Canada. Having been the parks critic for a number of years, I am aware of the fact that the number of $450 million, which is a round number, I suppose, which exceeds the total Parks Canada budget by about 50%, is the amount required immediately to bring many of the facilities within Parks Canada's jurisdiction just up to current standards so that they would be able to survive. We're talking about taking the total budget for Parks Canada, multiplying it by a factor of 150%, that then bringing us up to date, and still requiring $300 million to run Parks Canada. It strikes me that there's a fairly hefty commitment.
The further complication you've drawn to our attention, which some of us were aware of, is that with the fact that many of these historic assets are under the control of Parks Canada and now with it being outside of Canadian Heritage, because we can't get into specifics in this environment, I wonder if in broad terms you could give us a bit of an idea of how you would see the overlay of the concerns about the preservation of these historic sites and buildings. How would we do that, given the reality that the government chose to put Parks Canada into Heritage?
À (1000)
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, I'll ask Madame Moreau to give some comments on Mr. Abbott's question.
[Translation]
Ms. Ginette Moreau: Mr. Chair, the question of the resources necessary to maintain the built heritage in good condition is definitely a matter of shared responsibilities between the various players in the system. The built heritage comprises the historic buildings, monuments and sites that belong to the federal government, but it consists in large part of buildings and monuments belonging to other jurisdictions, such as provinces and municipalities, or the private sector. In all cases, we're facing the same problem.
But today there is increasing interest in heritage, and we want the private sector to make a greater contribution. We want to find solutions. Other countries have tried to find solutions, whether it be tax incentives or other measures, so that the communities and the private sector can get more involved in maintaining the built heritage.
In a review, these questions could be submitted for people's consideration so that we can see how the players could work together so that we, as Canadians, could afford the heritage we want to protect. Our heritage is enormous, but our resources are limited. It is constantly increasing, and we will have to make certain decisions. What heritage do we want to protect and what resources are we, as Canadians, prepared to allocate for that purpose in order to keep it for future generations? That should be among the options considered.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay): Thank you, Ms. Moreau.
Mr. Harvard.
[English]
Hon. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. Fraser, for coming today. You say you come here as a friend, and I certainly accept that. I think you are a friend of Parliament and a friend of the committee. But as the old adage goes, with friends like you...there are friends and then there are friends. I think it's quite remarkable the way you pop up all over the place these days. We're here to talk about history, and I can say that I think your place in history is assured.
I'm not too sure, as you point out in your report, about our own cultural heritage. In chapter 6 of your presentation today, you cite some of the possible reasons for the risk that our heritage is put at, and possibly even the loss of our heritage. I certainly don't quarrel with those assertions you make in that particular paragraph. My questions revolve around perhaps the attitude around here.
My central question, Ms. Fraser, is how did we get into this mess in the first place? Is it really a lack of money? Is it a lack of imagination? Is it a lack of political will?
We love this country. We understand the need to preserve our history, our cultural heritage, or at least we should. We actually do pay civil servants, politicians, and others good money to make sure that these assets are kept. Yet here we are with a story that you tell, and it's a pretty disturbing story. And it's not really a new story; it goes back a number of years. Yet we politicians--and I'll take as much responsibility as anybody--don't seem to know how to address it. I have this great worry, Ms. Fraser, that you could come back here five years from now, or ten years from now, and chances are you'll be telling the same story, except that it might just be a tad worse.
What is it about us? Why can't we address this particular issue so that our cultural heritage is not put at risk any further?
À (1005)
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think Mr. Harvard has asked a very pertinent and very important question. I obviously do not have the answer to that. I can give a personal reflection.
I think there are many competing priorities when it comes to tax dollars. Governments have to make the most informed decisions they can and try to put those dollars to the areas where they see greatest need. Canada did go through a period during the nineties where it had to cut back significantly on the expenditures of the government. I would venture the hypothesis that sometimes cutting back on some of these areas is easier to do than cutting back on other areas that affect Canadians more directly day to day, issues like health, for instance, that seem to have more public attention.
Quite frankly, I think the only solution to doing this, as we went back to say, is this. While we talk about a strategic plan, it's really to make the tough choices and to say that there are items, and there are assets, that we are trying to protect now that we can no longer afford to protect. I think there is a harsh reality in what this report has brought forward, and I know this is not an easy thing to do.
Hon. John Harvard: Surely you are not suggesting--at least I don't take it from your remarks, or from your presentation this morning--that this can be addressed by simply just throwing more money at it, but that there is something else. Do we--and I'm just venturing a guess here, Ms. Fraser--have to do a reprioritization of this particular issue? Somehow or another, do we have to come to grips with this and put this on a higher level so that the proper attention, the correct attention, whether it's more money or whatever, is given?
Ms. Sheila Fraser: I think that is exactly what we are trying to say, Mr. Chair. We cannot continue doing things the way we are doing them now. It's almost futile to keep trying to preserve everything that we're trying to preserve; the resources aren't there.
I think, Mr. Harvard, that we can put more money into it, but the problem isn't going to go away. So we have to look at the whole question with a much longer-term view. How do we make the system of heritage and protection a sustainable one? It is clearly not one now. To simply address the problems today, you're right that we will be back in five or 10 years, and we will be saying, the system was corrected then, but now it's gone out of control again.
So we really need to step back from all of this, to clearly focus on what we want to protect, how we want to do that, and whether it has to be simply government financing. There are initiatives that could perhaps be done with the private sector or non-profit organizations. I think there has to be more reflection given, not only to the mechanisms but also to what we actually want to preserve.
Hon. John Harvard: If you agree with me, though, how can we override departmental interest? To me, this really shouldn't be a contest between Heritage and Industry, Heritage and Agriculture, Heritage and Finance. Really, the major stakeholder in this equation is Canada, its history and heritage, something we simply have to preserve. If we are locked into that, with one department against the other, we'll never get out of it. Can we break out of that, so that we can really come to this with the national interest?
Ms. Sheila Fraser: I think there are obviously many mechanisms that could be done. Mr. Bonwick spoke about a study group outside of the departmental structures that could take it on and lead it. Commissions have been set up in the past to study these kinds of issues.
I do think, though, that it is important that there be one department that clearly has responsibility for doing that coordination, and that also has the leadership and, I would hesitate to say, the authority that goes with that, to get the people around the table, to get the plan done, and to make sure it actually happens—and then with oversight by a committee like this, to make sure they keep on track. But there has to be a plan of action developed, and somebody has to be responsible for implementing it.
À (1010)
Hon. John Harvard: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay): Mr. Lincoln.
[English]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I have a question on the retention of records. It's almost as huge as the keeping of the collections, because we have a problem with sorting out the collections, identifying them, and keeping them. But from what I can read, the whole question of retention and disposition is just as huge in the process.
If I understand the process right, taking the federal government itself, the Treasury Board sets guidelines as to how records are kept or disposed of, and which ones should be. Then the archives sets the guidelines as to authorities to dispose of them. I was reading in one section of your report that even then, we have a huge problem. You say that:
| records disposition authorities of 21 main federal departments and agencies covered a maximum of 67 percent of operational records created for non-administrative purposes. Thus, the authorities did not cover significant portions of these key departments.... There are 2,252 records disposition authorities in force, but only 37 percent are being used. The rest have become obsolete.... More than half of the 831 authorities in use need to be revised or replaced. |
In just this section alone, is it another case of the whole issue falling between two stools, the Treasury Board and all of its departments and the authorities of the national archivist, and somehow nothing gets done? What happens to all of these records that are piling up without being sorted out, and nobody knows what should be kept or not kept? Where are they? And can Madame Moreau or you give me an idea of how huge this thing is?
Ms. Ginette Moreau: Mr. Lincoln, yes, you are right. It's partly a question of all the players trying to work together.
[Translation]
There's the Treasury Board, which must set clear guidelines for the departments on the way to manage their documents. There are also the departments, which must implement those document management directives. Lastly, there is the National Archives, which informs the departments which documents they may destroy and which ones they must transfer to the National Archives.
The Treasury Board guidelines are quite limited, and the departments' interest in this matter is fairly limited as well. In addition, this is an area within the departments that was neglected during the budget cutting of recent years.
On the other hand, the National Archives has been trying over the past 15 years to modernize the way it selects and determines which documents deserve to be transferred and those that may be destroyed.
This challenge facing the National Archives is the same as that of archives in other countries. They are reviewing and modernizing this approach at the National Archives. What makes the problem more complex is the whole question of document management. The National Archives realizes that it must intervene much earlier in the process.
The good news in this regard, I think, is that the National Archives is very much aware of this situation. In the past 18 months, it has tried to get a much more complete and up-to-date idea of the situation regarding authorizations to dispose of documents in the departments. They have conducted certain pilot projects and have realized how effective the approaches and tools they had developed could be. They are working directly on that.
The other good news is that the National Archives is now working in close cooperation with the Treasury Board Secretariat. As a result, the policy on information management in the departments was developed. The role of the National Archives has been clarified as well as those of the departments.
Much remains to be done to make people aware, to change the culture so that the departments attach greater importance to the quality of document management, and there's still much to do to obtain those tools which are needed in order to enable the departments.
À (1015)
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Ms. Moreau, without going into too much detail, let's consider the example of three departments disposing of documents, some of which are classified secret, highly sensitive and so on, such as Justice, Foreign Affairs and National Defence. What happens to all those documents? For how many years have those documents been piling up? Who in those departments looks at those documents to determine what can be discarded? The National Archives no doubt obtains the information from the departments because it knows which documents must be obtained. How big is this problem? Let's take the example of a typical department. Have you seen what happens there? There are piles of documents, mountains of documents.
Mme Ginette Moreau: We haven't examined the situation directly in the departments. We went to see what the National Archives knew about the situation and about what information it had in order to assess the situation in the departments. When we examined the document disposal authorization system, we realized that, even within the National Archives, they didn't have up-to-date information. The National Archives realized that their transfer methods were not used by the departments and that they did not have complete, up-to-date information on the transfer methods on which they had agreed with the departments.
It must be understood that most of the documents are kept in the departments because the departments need a certain number of those documents for their operations. The terms of transfer specify when those documents must normally be transferred or destroyed, but they are not followed. There is no monitoring system to ensure that they are. The task is a very big one and it has been neglected in recent years.
What is the actual situation? We don't know, but we hope that updating and modernizing National Archives' approaches and the new Treasury Board policy will raise interest and that these issues will then be given a certain priority.
The Vice-Chair (Jeannot Castonguay): Thank you, Ms. Moreau.
Ms. Gagnon.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Ms. Fraser, after you submitted your report on the National Archives and the National Library, we learned that $5 million would be spent on a building that had been constructed at a cost of $25 million and that will house federal officials from the National Archives of Canada and the National Library of Canada. The $5 million has been paid, but the officials have not yet moved in. We know that money is urgently needed for the National Archives and the National Library. Why is there no coordination to ensure that money isn't spent twice? The premises are empty. There is an urgent need for a better structure or a better operation, and we're going to pay $5 million for nothing. That's what it's going to cost up to October. We're told the officials won't move in until October.
I was scandalized when I saw that $5 million had been spent and that no one had been able to properly coordinate the relocation strategy.
À (1020)
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask Ms. Moreau to answer Ms. Gagnon's question.
Mme Ginette Moreau: Mr. Chair, that matter is the responsibility of Public Works, the National Library and the National Archives. I don't know whether the building belongs to Public Works, but it was leased so that some of the staff of the National Library and the National Archives could move into it and also to process documents there. The period of time between the date on which the building was available and the date of the move appears to be an administrative matter.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: It's a bit scandalous that $5 million has been spent, that premises are available for processing purposes and that they'll wait nearly a year before moving in.
Mr. Abbott was wondering whether the private sector should be involved in the management and renovation of built heritage buildings because nothing will be done otherwise. I believe many buildings will be destroyed. I asked myself the same question, not with a view to getting the private sector involved, but from a feasibility standpoint. You're quite pessimistic about the possibility of achieving your conservation and archiving objectives. I wonder whether we shouldn't see whether there is a certain amount of decentralization. Management of most of the government's activities is a complex affair. When a department takes control over a management operation, that's complicated and difficult. The interests are also different depending on the different realities in Canada, which I won't mention this morning.
It was said that the National Library was losing certain originals. That's debatable, but it does appear that originals were involved. As a Francophone, I felt violated. I was shocked.
Why couldn't deposits be made based on the various realities in Canada instead of trying to control all that through a large service where management is very complicated? The firearms registry is a perfect example of this kind of complicated and difficult management. There are all kinds of intricacies. Ultimately, we realized that it's not effective.
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, we of course state that the government should consider other ways of doing things because the present ways are clearly not sustainable and cannot operate properly.
However, I believe there must be an organization within the federal government that makes decisions concerning the documents that we want to conserve and how that will be done. That organization must play a quasi-regulatory role. Physical deposits may be made elsewhere, but I believe that such an organization will always have to play a monitoring role to ensure that is done in the appropriate manner.
However, I believe it is time to consider other ways of doing things. That may be a fairly negative conclusion, but we are clearly losing certain parts of our history as a result of the present system. It's not because we've decided to let them go, but because the present management system loses them every day. Since 90 percent of collections are not stored in proper temperature and humidity conditions, documents are crumbling.
We must therefore impose a more active form of management. If necessary, we can decide not to keep everything, but we must give all the necessary attention to what we want to preserve.
À (1025)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay): Thank you, Ms. Fraser.
Mr. Schellenberger.
[English]
Mr. Gary Schellenberger: Thank you.
I really just have two questions here, two things I'd like to mention.
One, there are a lot of departments involved in heritage. The more agencies you have, the more reports you get and the more the archives fill up. Just through attrition and cutting back...putting archives under one department might even save on the archival retrieval. I'm just wondering about that.
Of course, we put the library and the archives together. That's brought two agencies together. Again, I think the more departments you have involved, the tougher it is to ever get anything concrete. I also sit on the fisheries and oceans committee, and I know that with the involvement of the various departments it gets very complicated and sometimes things don't get done or things get lost.
Second, one thing that has been mentioned here at different times today is the delivery of services and the collection of archives through the private sector. We have in my riding of Perth--Middlesex what to my mind are two very important archival institutions. One is the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame. With some seed money--they have some great business plans and great ideas--these people could look after some of the archival things and generate funds that would make these things work.
Another one is a heritage group in Stratford that took over the normal school, the former teachers' college. That building is a great heritage piece that was going to be lost. They took it over and they have raised funds. If you want to get a bang for your buck, go out there and help those in the private sector. You can't say it's up to the private sector to do it without some seed money to make these things work.
I know this one group in Stratford that is working to protect our heritage. The museum is in that building and they have done tremendous things. Hopefully, some of you folks might go to the Stratford Festival. The building is right beside it, and I would suggest that the next time you're there, it would be a great thing to go to see it. Their business plan is concrete and they could, with some seed money.... They have already raised pretty well all that money themselves to protect our heritage.
I ask about private sector investments like the ones from these particular institutions and about the bringing together of the agencies.
Ms. Sheila Fraser: First, on the question of centralizing archives, it is obviously important that there be some central agency that makes the policy decisions and gives the guidelines. The difficulty comes in that of course all of the departments have records and are producing records every day. We didn't specifically look at that part of the issue we are discussing here; we looked at what the National Archives knows about all of this.
There are some other serious issues that need to be addressed as well: what information is kept, what is not kept, and the whole classification of that. Whether it should be in one central place or in different places should be looked at. We have always taken the position that it's up to government to decide how they want to organize it. What we're concerned about is that overall there be an adequate knowledge about what should be kept, where it is kept, and what the state of that process is at any given time.
On the question of private sector and NGO involvement, I think we have said quite clearly in the report and in the testimony today that it is important for the government to look at new ways of doing things, because the current way is not sustainable. Involving others in this and finding a solution to this should certainly be considered seriously, and I think there are many organizations that would probably be interested in participating.
The challenge is always across government, these horizontal issues, and we see that, I would say, in just about all our audits. There is always a challenge just to get organizations within government to work together, and you make it more complex by bringing in others.
I will just finally add, Mr. Schellenberger, that it is always a pleasure to go to Stratford for the festival.
À (1030)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay):
We go to Mr. Bonwick and then to Madame Lill.
Hon. Paul Bonwick: I'm not sure how accurate this number is, Mr. Chairman, but several weeks or months ago when we were dealing with the original Library and Archives of Canada Act, an archivist suggested to me there was something in the neighbourhood of 630,000 and more relevant documents per year that, at least in his opinion, have a historical significance such that they should be saved. That's 630,000 a year.
I think you have come up with a very key phrase. We need to determine what should be kept, because I don't know that there is any amount of resources that would allow us to meet that need. I think that gives us some perspective on the kind of demand that is going to be faced.
I just wanted to note, mainly for the record, but certainly I would be pleased to have you comment on it, Mr. Schellenberger's comment that there are facilities in place presently that we could look at partnering with. Quite often, based on my experience, sometimes that opens the door to divesting ourselves of the responsibility when government sees it. The AG has very rightly pointed out that this is not an easy business to manage. When you start dealing with buildings that have to have very specific humidity control and very specific temperature control, whether it's in your riding, Mr. Schellenberger, or in mine—and for some of the museums it's mine—it's very difficult for them to meet those targets, especially in rural communities.
So I think the key phrase the committee has to continue to focus on is strategic planning and accountability from the department. I don't want to open up the floodgates and say we can start asking the provinces or the municipalities to pick up our slack. I don't think that's the hope. But the 630,000 was quite startling, to my mind. How do you ever meet that? Well, the answer is you don't, so you have to determine what it is you're going to keep and what it is you're not.
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Bonwick has just confirmed the kind of challenge we are indicating in the report. I don't think we mentioned any specific numbers and I wouldn't be able to confirm, but I think we can all appreciate that the numbers are impressive.
The issue is that they keep growing each year. I think they grow by 6% each and every year, so the numbers are only going to continue in which the gap is going to get greater.
As we have said, we really have to decide what it is we want to keep, what systems are in place to do it, and what resources it takes, and then I think it is appropriate to look at different ways of doing it. There can be innovative solutions, but I would agree with the comment Mr. Bonwick has made. As I said earlier, I still believe the federal government has a responsibility, if not some kind of regulatory function, to make sure the items we want to be preserved are being preserved, are being kept in the proper conditions, and are being made accessible as well to the public. At the end of the day, that is what we are preserving all this for: to have Canadians and others know about the history of this country.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay): Madame Lill.
Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.
I want to just suggest again that as a watchdog committee, we have that role of being able to look at the areas of heritage that are of concern to this committee. We have the opportunity now, with the benefit of your report, to use the recommendations of the report and bulk them up with the reports that we have made over the last years in order to put forward some very strong recommendations to the department, which I would suggest we do based on the concerns you've put forward in paragraphs 14, 15, and 16 of your document.
Then I would like to suggest that we either, as Mr. Bonwick suggested, have the heritage department, the National Library, and the National Archives come before us to discuss their action plans on these areas or send them letters and ask them to start doing some work on it in writing so we can start seeing that when we come back together.
I must say, Madam Moreau, your comments about the fact that when you looked at the document disposal organization system, you found out in fact that the archives realized they're not getting stuff from the departments. The system has broken down. So potentially we could have massive amounts of material that never do get archived--black holes in history, black holes in government records. It's very frightening.
And really, when it all comes down to it, you think about different events in history that have been revisited because there has been archival information, there have been tapes, written records. If they're not there, then we don't find out what happened, we don't learn from our mistakes, we don't know what our history is. So what you're saying is quite disturbing.
You didn't mention any particular departments. Maybe you don't know the departments. Let's shine a light on this. Let's say we have a really major breakdown here in terms of history making, record keeping in this country. I beseech this committee to take this seriously and put it forward as the new committee gets struck after this very imminent election.
À (1035)
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Mr. Chair, I was just going to mention that what we have started to do with other committees, and in particular the public accounts committee, to which we are accountable for the most part, is when the committee makes recommendations or requests action plans from departments, we do follow-up audits. So we will go back in a reasonable period of time, depending on what the department's action plan is, to see if they've actually done what they have committed to do.
If the committee thinks that would be useful in your future work, we would certainly be glad to take into account--we always do--the committee's recommendations as well in our work, and then we'd be able to provide you with the information to see how the issues are progressing and whether the actions that departments have committed to are actually being undertaken.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay):
Are there any other questions from the members?
Madame Lill.
Ms. Wendy Lill: Well, I guess I would just like to see whether we have a consensus around the table that we would like to put forward the concerns that were put forward in the Auditor General's report and ask for responses from the appropriate committees.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay): If this is a formal motion, we should adjourn this meeting and then go into the other meeting and deal with it as a committee. Is there any wise counsel around the table?
Yes, Paul.
Hon. Paul Bonwick: I don't like to qualify it by saying “wise”, but I would suggest it doesn't necessarily need to be a motion if the committee wants to give direction, through the chair to the clerk, to send a letter to the department. I would suggest we maybe expand on it ever so slightly, Ms. Lill.
I think it's important we identify a few of the key themes that have been touched on today, not the least of which goes back to strategic planning. I think it's also a worthwhile exercise both for Ms. Fraser and for the minister that we ask that both, or certainly from the minister's perspective, re-engage the committee if the committee is not in a position to deal with this in a timely fashion.
As we know, whether it's an election or whether the committee becomes engaged in legislation, whatever the case might be, sometimes these slip off the list. Ms. Fraser has said this is a priority of hers. I can't think of any greater priority of this committee than to engage in it as well. So perhaps we need a little request from the minister to make sure the committee is re-engaged in this if something should cause the committee to break for a while.
À (1040)
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay): Yes.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I agree with you that this is a subject of discussion for us to find out the best way of following up.
I know there's a consensus here that we have to follow this up. We have to go back to the new minister and make sure he realizes how keen we are to follow this up as soon as possible. Possibly in a business meeting we can decide the best way of doing this, either with letters, as suggested by Mr. Bonwick, or another form of motion or something to make sure the ministry is aware it should start working on it again soon.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay): Are there any other comments?
I want to thank you, Madame Fraser, for coming with your staff. I believe you shed some light on many of the questions members asked. If we need your help later on, we'll invite you again.
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We really do appreciate the interest of the committee in this report, and we look forward to further discussions with you in the future.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jeannot Castonguay): Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.