:
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 135th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
I'm standing in for the chair, so this is a bit new to me.
Welcome to our guests who are here to testify on report number two of the 2018 fall reports of the on conserving federal heritage properties.
We have with us, from the Office of the Auditor General, Mr. Jerome Berthelette and Ms. Susan Gomez, who is the Director in charge of the studies.
From Parks Canada Agency, we have Mr. Michael Nadler, Acting Chief Executive Officer; Ms. Joëlle Montminy, Vice-President, Indigenous Affairs and Cultural Heritage Directorate; and Madame Genevieve Charrois, Director, Cultural Heritage Policies.
From the Department of National Defence, we have the Deputy Minister, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Rob Chambers, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Infrastructure and Environment.
From the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we have Mr. Kevin Stringer, Associate Deputy Minister, and Mr. Bill Varvaris, Director General, Real Property and Environmental Management.
Welcome to all.
We are starting with the Office of the Auditor General.
Mr. Berthelette, the floor is yours.
:
Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to present the results of our report on conserving federal heritage properties. In this audit, we looked at physical assets that the government safeguards on behalf of Canadians—in this case, the country's national historic sites and heritage buildings. Joining me at this table is Susan Gomez, who is the director responsible for this audit.
There are long-standing problems in the conservation of Canada's federal heritage properties, and we saw few improvements since we last audited this area in 2003 and 2007.
[English]
We found that Parks Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and National Defence either did not know how many heritage buildings they had or did not know what condition the buildings were in.
For example, Parks Canada's database identified that the agency had only 186 heritage buildings. That information was incorrect, so we asked the agency to review that number. The agency took over four weeks to provide us with what it said was a complete list of 504 heritage buildings.
Regarding the condition of heritage buildings, we found that National Defence's data was based on assessments completed in the 2009-10 fiscal year, even though assessments for most of their heritage buildings had recently been updated.
In 2017, Fisheries and Oceans Canada had updated assessments for only seven of its 267 heritage buildings.
As a result, the information that organizations provided to the public and to Parliament about these properties was either incorrect or incomplete. We also found that conservation decisions were based on available resources and operational requirements rather than on heritage considerations. The money that was needed to maintain federal heritage properties was not always available.
For example, Parks Canada told us that it had invested $50.5 million between 2015 and 2018 to maintain and conserve the agency's heritage properties; however, its deferred maintenance backlog on federal heritage properties was $1.2 billion in 2017.
[Translation]
We also noted that there was no link between the designation of new heritage buildings and their conservation. Needs have outpaced efforts when it comes to the conservation of federal heritage properties, yet the number of properties continues to grow. Because there has been no additional funding to conserve these properties, there is a risk that more may fall into disrepair and eventually be erased from the country's history.
Madam Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair. You've already introduced my colleagues, but just to repeat, you have representatives here from Parks Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
[Translation]
I would like to begin by thanking the chair and the committee members for inviting Parks Canada and our colleagues from other departments to appear today.
It is a privilege to testify before the committee and to have the opportunity to discuss the results of the recent Auditor General's report on the conservation of federal heritage properties.
[English]
We'd also like to express our thanks to the Office of the Auditor General for their collaboration in the conduct of this audit and also express our sincere condolences to our colleagues here at the table and their colleagues at their office on the recent passing of Auditor General Michael Ferguson.
Canada's natural and cultural heritage places are an essential part of all our identities as Canadians. Parks Canada has been entrusted with the mandate to protect and share with Canadians and the world some of the greatest examples of our nation's heritage, and we take this duty very seriously.
Parks Canada administers federal heritage designation and conservation programs on behalf of the Government of Canada. Preserving heritage places involves a broad community of stewards, including federal custodian departments, such as our colleagues here at the table. The community also includes federal agencies and Crown corporations, as well as provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous peoples and communities, and a number of organizations active in the preservation of history and heritage across the country.
Over the years, the government has formally recognized more than 2,150 persons, places and events of national historic significance. There are over 1,300 federal heritage buildings, as well as 164 heritage railway stations and 39 Canadian heritage rivers. In addition, 19 world heritage sites in Canada have been inscribed on the world heritage list.
[Translation]
Each of these designations focuses on different objectives. Some are solely commemorative, others focus on protection and conservation, and others still are a combination of the two.
[English]
In our role as steward of built heritage, Parks Canada safeguards 171 national historic sites, 504 federal buildings and 10 heritage lighthouses. Incidentally, we're also responsible for more than 10,000 archeological sites across the country.
Some of these places, buildings and designations overlap. For example, the Rideau waterway, including the canal here in downtown Ottawa, is a national historic site, a world heritage site, part of the Canadian heritage river system and home to 26 federal heritage buildings.
Parks Canada also oversees the federal heritage buildings review office, which provides guidance to other federal custodians on the conservation of their heritage buildings.
The agency also administers a national cost-sharing program for heritage places, providing matching funds to eligible non-federal custodians of national historic sites, lighthouses and railway stations and to support heritage conservation and presentation projects.
[Translation]
We are proud of the work done by the agency and other federal departments, but we also recognize that we are facing a number of challenges related to the conservation of our cultural heritage.
[English]
Parks Canada welcomes the Auditor General's report on the conservation of federal heritage properties as part of our ongoing commitment to protect Canada's heritage places. The Auditor General's attention reflects the importance of Canada's built heritage to the government and to Canadians.
[Translation]
The agency is determined to address the shortcomings identified by the Auditor General with regard to its asset management databases and the related impact they have had on the information shared with Canadians and parliamentarians.
[English]
We are committed to ongoing improvement in data quality within the agency's national asset information management database, especially as it pertains to cultural heritage, and we'll monitor the results of these corrections to avoid any recurrence of errors in the future. Once up to date, the data will be maintained.
In the spirit of openness and transparency, Parks Canada will also work to improve public access to this information. As noted in the Auditor General's second recommendation, Parks Canada will continue to review the approach for designating federal heritage buildings and will work with partners to establish a consistent standard of heritage conservation across the federal government.
As part of the Treasury Board Secretariat policy reset initiative, Parks Canada will contribute to efforts to improve the language around life-cycle management of heritage properties, to ensure that federal heritage buildings and properties are managed in a manner that demonstrates sound stewardship and value for money, consistent with federal government priorities.
In parallel, as part of Parks Canada's response to the recommendations found in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's recent report on the preservation and protection of Canada's historic places, we are currently pursuing a research plan and stakeholder engagement aimed at identifying the right mix of measures that can be used to strengthen the conservation of historic places in Canada, including legislative measures and financial tools.
When the Auditor General's Office visited several Parks Canada sites, they observed that some built assets were in poor condition. Since those visits, I'm pleased to report that Parks Canada has been able to make considerable progress on improving the condition of the heritage properties that we administer.
While many challenges remain, hundreds of millions in federal investments are being made to preserve, rehabilitate and restore national historic sites such as the Fortress of Louisbourg, the Rideau Canal, Province House, Grosse Île and the Irish Memorial National Historic Site, and the Klondike National Historic Sites.
[Translation]
These investments lead to the remediation of many heritage sites and buildings across Canada. The agency is working hard to develop strategies to be able to maintain those important places going forward.
[English]
Parks Canada recognizes the inestimable value of our country's natural and cultural heritage. We welcome the report of the Auditor General and are grateful to the committee for this opportunity to discuss our work in the preservation and presentation of some of Canada's greatest historic places.
We thank you for your time.
My colleagues and I will be happy to receive your questions.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank all our witnesses.
Before I start asking my questions, I want to provide some context on what I think about the issue and explain why this matter is important to me. I have been an avid outdoorsman for a long time. To give you an idea of how important Canadian heritage and especially Parks Canada, are to me, let me say that, for our honeymoon, more than three decades ago, my wife and I visited all the national parks in one summer, which took us more than two months. So I am very familiar with those parks. I am very familiar with heritage sites. I have an amateur interest in history in general. You now understand what this issue means to me.
I was shocked and saddened to read in the Auditor General's report that it wasn't even possible to make a complete list of heritage properties belonging to each department. I heard what you just said, Mr. Nadler, and I know this issue focuses on three institutions: Parks Canada, National Defence and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Can Fisheries and Oceans Canada give us a complete list of heritage properties it currently owns?
This report, beginning on page 1, really is quite troubling because this report begins by pointing out that in 2003 the Auditor General found that federal heritage properties were at risk. It went on to talk about a number of problems. At that time, in 2003, Canadian Heritage and Parks Canada agreed to strengthen the legal framework to conserve heritage properties. They agreed to work with the Treasury Board of Canada to define what type of information to collect and how to appropriately assess and report on the conditions.
Then, four years later, in 2007, the Auditor General found that it didn't happen. Here we are another 12 years later finding out again the shortcomings.
When departments have to come back repeatedly following these kinds of reports, it's troubling to Canadians. The departments here have accepted the findings of the Auditor General. Canadians would ask, how do we have any confidence, with the assurances we're going to receive today, that we're not going to be back here in two years, three years, five years, 10 years hearing the same concerns raised again?
Mr. Nadler, please explain why we are here in 2019 hearing the same problems that have been identified over time.
:
Let me respond for Parks Canada, and then my colleagues might want to respond for their own departments.
You're absolutely right. Successive audits found that for Parks Canada, significant investment was required to address a decline in a number of our historic buildings and our historic sites. In fact, we knew from our own analyses that a number of our assets—we're an agency managing 17,000 assets across the country, many of them important transportation assets—were in decline.
Beginning with budget 2015, so fiscal year 2014-15, and then again in budget 2017 and then most recently in budget 2019, successive governments have been helping us to invest in the restoration of those assets.
We are now managing a program of work in the order of $3.5 billion to restore heritage assets, as well as a broader suite of assets in the agency's portfolio. That work is absolutely critical to our mandate and to our ongoing success as an agency.
With regard to the other elements found in the audit, we had excellent information on the state of our heritage assets at the local level. The gap for us was the list at the national level. We are working now to permanently fix that and expect that to be in place by the fall of 2019.
:
In the case of National Defence, we actually have the data. We haven't always been able to say that about every program, but we do have the data with regard to our infrastructure.
We have 20,000 buildings across the country. We have 11,000 works—jetties, runways and roads—and the total value of our assets is about $26 billion.
In our case, the criticism in 2007 was that we were not prioritizing the preservation of heritage properties, and that essentially came down to a question of budget.
Our conservation efforts going forward will come down to a question of budget. Of the 20,000 buildings, 292 are heritage buildings. We have a plan to assess them. We do it every five years on a cyclical basis, 20% a year, and we will finish the last 20% outstanding from this audit this year.
The outstanding question for Defence from 2007 and from this audit is about prioritization and investment. Keeping runways that are functional, keeping jetties for current ships functional and investing in buildings that are being used will have to be our priority. The assurance that conservation needs will be prioritized will be on a case-by-case basis, dependent on budget.
:
For Fisheries and Oceans, the issue of basic tracking is an issue, and we get the concern of the committee.
For us, there were really three things. We want to give the committee assurance. We know what heritage buildings we have and what heritage sites we have. The challenge with the database was three things for us.
In some cases, it was listed as something on DFO's database and listed with a different name or title on the FHBRO database. Second, there were heritage lighthouses. There are 30 that were designated, and 94 that are petitioned to be designated. There were all lumped in as designated. Third, there was one that was listed as ours, but it had been divested. They were these types of things.
In terms of improving the situation, we are serious about improving the situation. It is basic stuff, and we get that. We've had, as part of our comprehensive review process, about a doubling of the investment in our real property programming and a doubling of the FTEs that are on this, so we're confident we're going to get it right. We've already cleaned up that part of the database, and we have a broader effort for our 6,600 sites across the country.
:
Thank you, Chair. I have to tell you this. You have a majority government, so why don't you pass a law that forbids flooding? That wouldn't impact the roads. Get with it.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. David Christopherson: My apologies. The roads are really bad, but that's the least of some people's problems. I'm glad I got here, and I do appreciate your consideration.
This is a really bad audit. I have to tell you that when I looked at what the week was going to be and I saw CMHC the other day, I thought, okay, that's going to be the rough one, and then we'll get Heritage, and everything will be all nice and we'll talk history and it will all be very good. In fact, it was quite the opposite. I was rather impressed with their audit the other day, and this is just an abysmal report.
There's very little in here for anybody in management to be proud of—very little. The one little nugget I can throw out goes to National Defence, believe it or not, because in one area of data collection where we've been pounding on them—and they do have that message and that was reflected here—they did that right. One thing—one—was okay.
Colleagues know that nothing incenses me more than previous audits finding the same problem and making the same recommendations, with the government making the same promises, while audit after audit it's not done. It's infuriating. That's where we are with this one.
There were audits in 2003 and 2007. Paragraph 2.7 in our 2007 audit says, “...we concluded that Parks Canada's conservation efforts since 2003”, which was the earlier audit, “were not enough to ensure federal organizations conserved heritage properties.”
Let's just jump ahead to see what the final mark was, if you will. The conclusion is on page 17, at paragraphs 2.76 and 2.77. This is the conclusion from the auditor:
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.
The life of some federal properties was at risk—properties that are for the enjoyment of present and future generations of Canadians.
Here's my first question, before we even get into the details. There were promises made, not by you individually but by the organizations and departments you represent. There were promises made in 2003 and not kept and promises made in 2007 and not kept. What on earth would have us believe that the promises you're making today you're actually going to honour?
I want to hear from you.
:
Like National Defence, we were not in the audit in 2003—or in 2007, in our case.
There really are three things. We're identified in this audit in one, which is the tracking, and I spoke to what we're doing with respect to tracking. We have basically addressed that issue.
Then there are the condition reports, and we've said we'll have those done by 2021.
Then there's actually maintaining the buildings, which I think is going to be the challenge going forward. That really is, I think, a budget issue. As well, as the deputy of National Defence said, we along with the feds will prioritize our spending on assets that are actually being used and that are required for our core mandate.
When we are dealing with heritage buildings, we know about the requirements for heritage buildings and will be guided by the guidance that Parks Canada provides in that regard.
The funding really is an issue. I mentioned this before, but I'll give you some numbers. In our case, in budget 2017 our O & M budget for our real property for 6,600 sites or assets went from $48 million to $110 million. It was a significant increase, and we are able to do some of the things that this audit is asking to do, as well as better maintain all the buildings. On capital, we went from $44 million a year to $88 million a year. That's ongoing, and it has made a genuine difference in terms of being able to address these issues and other issues around heritage buildings.
Maybe I'll switch now and talk about the whole business of designation in the first place. It was mentioned in the report, “We found that the federal government focused primarily on designating heritage properties, rather than conserving them.”
That statement, I'm sure, is troubling to Canadians who would ask what the point is of designating something, other than just to allow for a photo op, and perhaps to allow people to feel good for a moment about the designation of something. When each day goes by and preservation doesn't occur until you wake up one day with a falling-apart building with a designation attached to it, that's really of no benefit to any Canadian.
How are we going to address this, where we connect the actual need to preserve with a designation?
I guess that's probably a question for Parks Canada.
Actually, that provides me with a good segue into where I was going, because I agree with Mr. Arya; this is unsustainable. We're kidding ourselves here. At some point, we have to decide whether we pony up the money and tax citizens to make sure these buildings are kept the way the policy says or we cut back on what we designate. Ms. Thomas gave the example of hangars. Looking at it from a practical point of view, you do have to ask if that is a top priority. Even in some experiences here on the Hill, we've seen some examples over the years. So I agree that this..and I think maybe that's what we need to do.
Let me say right up front that I agree that the bulk of the problem is money. I did not appreciate being told that this was the whole problem—I can come back to that in a minute—because the management here has been abysmal. That's the responsibility of the people sitting here, and your predecessors. The money part is ours. Either we make it a priority to make sure there's enough money there or we make sure that the work we designate we are going to fund—one or the other. I agree that at some point some government has to get on top of this and make some tough decisions about what we will do in terms of taxing and spending to keep our heritage alive. I think looking at Britain, which has a lot more experience than we do, is maybe a really good idea. At some point, we need to do that.
I want to draw your attention, Chair, to paragraph 2.21 on page 4. I won't read the whole thing, even though I was going to because it deserves to be read out, but I want to read the last sentence: “We found, however, that the regional representatives we met knew the number and condition of the heritage properties that they were responsible for.” That speaks to the staff and to the dedication of people in the public sector who, by and large, overwhelmingly really do care about what they're doing. The people who are involved in heritage care about these buildings. They become part of their extended family. I appreciate that the auditor put that in there, because that's part of the backstop of this. If this is working at all, it's because of the individual people on the ground as opposed to some of the management decisions we've been seeing.
I'm very pleased to see that the Auditor General is going to go back, because I do think we need to stay on top of this.
It's just getting worse and worse, so your holding them to account, and our knowing that you are going back in, is very helpful.
I'm running out of time, Chair, so I won't go to the actual page, but paragraph 2.35 talks about details being certified. Perhaps you will allow me to parenthetically ask the auditor what it means, exactly, that information has been certified. That's a fairly new expression for me in terms of these reports.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I gather, from what we've heard, that your departments are already responsible for a great deal of infrastructure, including monuments, buildings, places, sites and so on.
In small communities, both urban and rural, it's relatively easy to have historic monuments designated. One reason is that the municipalities don't have the means to take care of the monuments. As soon as the municipalities have the monuments designated as national heritage, the municipalities are relieved because another organization will take care of the monuments. That's my impression, and I may be wrong. I would like you to talk about this.
In short, the government is expanding its stock of infrastructure when it may not have the means to maintain its current infrastructure.
I want to hear from the Parks Canada representatives.
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?
:
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?
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?
:
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?