:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As soon as I got back to my office, I made some telephone calls to reach all the witnesses appearing on the list of the adopted motion. The calls were made between 11:34 a.m. and 12:09 p.m. on Tuesday. However, the answers were slow in coming in some cases, despite reminders. Essentially, none of the six witnesses was available to appear before the committee this morning. I'll give you the details for each of them. However, it appeared quite early in my discussions with the potential witnesses that a window was opening for next Thursday. Of course, it can't be next week, since we are in recess, but Thursday the 28th. So I immediately confirmed that date, and it appears that most of the witnesses would be available on the 28th.
That's the first item of good news. In view of the witnesses' absence this morning, I've taken the initiative, after discussing the matter with the Chair, of summoning the originally scheduled witnesses and of holding the meeting on the Soudas-Housakos affair on Thursday the 28th, with your consent, of course.
:
Quite honestly, Chair, I think this is beyond belief. We have had in this committee, and in any other committee I've been involved in over the years, many occasions where witnesses have not been available on a short-term basis. If there was a wilful intent to avoid the committee, then by all means that is the purpose of a summons.
If you take a look at a legal justification of a summons, a summons is intended, obviously, for the purpose of demanding attention when there's been a wilful abeyance of a request. We are really overstepping our bounds here. We've had a number of occasions when witnesses were not available on one or two days' notice. There has to be a sense of reasonable balance in this committee.
I really think this flies in the face of common courtesy, let alone respect for the values and principles that this committee holds true. This committee is not a kangaroo court. It should be a committee to hear people—not at leisure, but where is the balance between mandating that we run almost a Gestapo-like process here or do it in a Canadian way, where there's a little bit of tolerance and respect and courtesy and understanding?
With the greatest respect to my colleagues who are putting forth a motion such as this, I see no reason for it. If we have a wilful predisposition of these witnesses to avoid coming, that's one thing. Then quite frankly, regardless who those witnesses are, I'd say let's summon them, by all means. How many times have we called witnesses, whether ministers or deputies or private people, who have not been able to come on that day? Obviously we would go back to another day or try to have some form of level of convenience whereby we try to work with people.
This is an affront to a willingness to work with everybody. I see nothing to be gained from issuing a summons. To me it's a clear breach of our responsibilities at this time. We have to know the difference between doing what is right and fair and stepping over the bounds. To me, this is totally stepping over the bounds.
If the clerk came to this committee and said, we've contacted these people, but there's obviously an unwillingness to appear at a certain date, and the clerk indicated from the conversation that there was either a demeanour or an attitude, or simply “excusitis”, then that is not an excuse, and I think we then have an obligation to treat it as not being one.
In this case, the clerk has reported that he had given, of course, very short notice—simply a day or two. How many of us can appear automatically sometimes on a one- or two-day notice? It can be difficult.
I think this is a reasonable request, to simply put it off for that week. If at that particular point the clerk contacts these people and they're not available again with a lengthy period of advance notice, then I think we have every reason and every right to put more than expectations, but realistic demands on these people from this committee.
At this particular point, Madam Chair, I almost think you should declare this motion not acceptable, because it flies right in the face of the normal dealings of this committee. I think it's a little too much, at this point, to expect that. I'm rather disappointed in my colleagues that they seem to want to read something into everything.
That's all I have to say at this point.
:
In order, Mr. Dimitri Soudas could not be present today for family reasons that I thought were quite legitimate. As to February 28, he told me he might be available if the other witnesses were present. Mr. Housakos, whom I finally reached late yesterday afternoon, first wanted to meet with his lawyer and expressed the wish to be accompanied by him. He would be present on the 28th, if that were the committee's wish.
As for Mr. Michael Fortier, I spoke to the departmental liaison officer and to his legislative assistant, Mr. Christopher Hilton. Mr. Fortier clearly was not available this morning because there is a Cabinet meeting. However, despite my numerous requests, no one was able to tell me whether the minister would be available on February 28. Mr. Frédéric Loiselle could not be present this morning. However, he was the first to offer, very early on moreover, at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, to come on February 28. So he's available.
Mr. Rosenberg is in New York today and could not be here. However, he would be available on February 28, if he has enough time to prepare. Mr. Lemieux, who is Mr. Rosenberg's lawyer—he is not necessarily a Rosdev employee—wanted to talk about terms and conditions with his client, Mr. Rosenberg. Mr. Lemieux would therefore also be available on February 28.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My concern is that we've asked a number of people to come forward, and we've given them a very short window of time. I see, after one meeting, how people couldn't get here because we insisted that they be here within two days. There's no indication that they are hostile witnesses.
I think we have to be very careful about what we're doing with this committee. This is not a kangaroo court. People's reputations are at stake just by coming to this committee, and we have to be careful with that. Unless we have a sense that people are wilfully dragging their feet and refusing to come--and I have been at committees where we have had to summon because there has been a refusal.... If there is no indication that they couldn't make it on two days' notice from wherever they are in Canada to be here, and so we have to summon them, it sends the message that we think they've done something wrong.
I think we need to establish a professional tone at this committee to show that we are asking people to come forward in good faith, that we are asking to hear their testimony. And if there's anything that leads us to further discussions out of that testimony, we'll move forward. At this point, I think it would set a very unprofessional tone for this committee if we summoned people based on the fact they couldn't be here by Thursday after being asked on Tuesday.
:
Since this is my motion, I'd like to speak to it.
In my opinion, a summons to appear can be very legal and formal, but it can also be a letter inviting witnesses.
Clerk, you spoke to the witnesses by telephone. They told you that they could be here if the others were as well; one other witness said that he would discuss the matter with his lawyer and that he would see. So we have no assurance that certain witnesses won't let us down in the next two weeks. I want us to be sure that the witnesses who said they are available appear before the committee.
I want to trust people. In my view, everyone is beautiful, everyone is nice, except when they don't all react in the same way. I don't want the witnesses to withdraw following certain reactions or discussions. On the one hand, I want to summon them, and on the other hand, I want us to ensure that we have changed the agenda concerning our meeting schedule.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I understand the idea behind what is trying to do.
As I indicated earlier, my feeling is that the summons is certainly out of order. These people have indicated their willingness to be here. Let's go on that.
Writing a letter is giving a clear signal that this is somehow a different category than other witnesses we call. It gives another message. I would be opposed to anything other than what our clerk has already done. He's indicated that they're willing to appear on the 28th. Let's go with that, and let's proceed with business.
In addition, Madam Chair, we have witnesses here. We have business to be done. This is another example that this committee can't get its act together and can't focus on priorities. We need to get moving.
[English]
Do you want me to read the motion or do you understand it? It just changes it from today to Thursday, the 28th.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
The Chair: I'm pleased that you were informed that that would take a little time, because certain things were going on. So I thank you for your patience.
[English]
We're now going to discuss the real estate plan of the Government of Canada.
We have two guests. We have Madame Demers, from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and Mr. Burns.
You know the format. Give us a brief statement, and then we'll open it to questions.
:
Madam Chair, committee members, I would like to thank you for allowing us to appear today.
[English]
I would like to more formally introduce Mr. Don Burns, who is the vice-president of the Professional Institute and also a professional engineer who worked for the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada for many years in the real property branch.
[Translation]
We, of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, believe that the case for selling off 40 federal buildings to the private sector and renting them back on 25-year leases is a bad idea. The level of secrecy involved, the flimsy evidence upon which the claim was made that it will benefit Canadians, the absence of any need for the sale, and the threat to Canada's cultural heritage make this an exceedingly bad plan for Canadians.
Incredible but true, in 2007, just 14 weeks were needed for nine federal buildings to be listed for sale, bid on, sold, and the $1.4 billion sale reviewed. The government has repeatedly refused requests to release the criteria for the bidding process and the study recommending the sale of the buildings.
This committee's own request for the pertinent details was refused, leading to the committee's call for a moratorium on the government’s sale/leaseback plan.
The government has repeatedly made a great deal of its commitment to transparency and accountability enshrined in the Federal Accountability Act. The government should now demonstrate this commitment by releasing the financial details of Phase 1 of the Real Estate Plan and the Deutsche Bank report recommending the sale of the buildings.
[English]
In the absence of solid evidence to the contrary, there are simply no grounds to believe that Canadian taxpayers will benefit from the sell-off. As The Globe and Mail reported last year, Department of Finance and Privacy Council Office analysts warned that the sale could wind up costing taxpayers up to $600 million over 25 years, and recommended that a full risk analysis be done before the government proceeded with the sale. The maximum potential benefits from the sale are $250 million, or less than half the potential costs—and these costs are likely to grow.
Cost control, quality, oversight, and accountability problems arising from privatization of public assets are well known in the public administration literature. A case in point is L'Esplanade Laurier, home of the Treasury Board and the Department of Finance. Soon after the private acquisition of this building, complaints arose over the upgrading of fire alarms, the quality of drinking water supplied to the building, and the timely repair and renovation of the building's exterior. Taxpayers ended up footing the bill for these repairs and upgrades, and taxpayers will undoubtedly be expected to pick up the tab for cost overruns of operations in privatized federal buildings.
Countries like Britain, Australia, and New Zealand have been at the forefront of this type of government reorganization. What underlies the idea of leasebacks is a rethinking of what a federal government's responsibility is to its citizens, moving from the role of upholding values and enhancing public good to one that is solely financial, that is, determining how money is spent.
The Australian and New Zealand experiences have been offered as examples of success in projects of this kind. There it was determined that the selling off of government holdings was more cost-effective than upgrading the buildings and assets. While economic savings was in fact the impetus for the reforms, the results have not been substantiated. Liquidating the buildings had some short-lived financial results, but no long-term benefits materialized. In fact, in the year 2000, the Australian National Audit Office concluded that the sale and leaseback agreements heavily favoured the new owners. They found that rent was set above market rates, that the sale price failed to take into account the tax benefits for the buyers, and that in some cases rent would well exceed the sale price in as little as eight years.
There's no evidence of a compelling need to sell off government buildings. The rush to sell off government buildings might be understandable if the government were facing a fiscal crisis, but this is not the case. Canada has now posted a budget surplus for 10 straight years, the only country in the G7 to do so. Canada's total government net debt burden is the lowest in the G7. The federal government's stellar credit rating allows it to borrow money more cheaply than the private sector, making it more cost-efficient to hold onto its properties and to pay for building maintenance and upkeep.
Again, we see absolutely no justification for the government's decision to sell off 40 public buildings. According to a 2003 Statistics Canada study, Public Infrastructure in Canada: Where Do We Stand?, Canada's $157 billion in publicly owned infrastructure has a tangible impact on the productivity and the economic performance of the business sector. The study goes on to report that public infrastructure lowers the cost of producing a given level of output in virtually every Canadian industry within the business sector. Each dollar invested in public infrastructure between 1961 and 2000 generated an average of 17% in cost savings each year for the private sector. The study found that the public sector was integral in helping the private sector gain wealth. This raises questions over what will be the long-term economic consequences if the government continues to privatize Canadian public assets.
[Translation]
The buildings potentially on the auction block include such special-purpose structures as the National Film Board building in Montreal, the Library and Archives building in Ottawa, and the Film Preservation Centre in Gatineau.
Safeguarding Canada’s cultural heritage is too important a duty to be left to private developers. Larco Investments Ltd., the company which acquired the federal buildings sold in 2007, intends to tear down Vancouver’s magnificent Graham House, designed by Arthur Erickson and a work of singular architectural importance.
The rush to offload special-purpose government buildings to private developers with no accountability to the Canadian public puts Canada’s cultural heritage at risk and is shortsighted in the extreme.
In sum, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada believes the decision to sell government buildings is motivated by ideology rather than clear evidence of a compelling benefit to Canadians. We call on the government to abandon its attempt to sell off a further 31 federal properties. The Institute also calls on the government to immediately release the financial details surrounding Phase 1 of the Real Estate Plan to the Office of the Auditor General and to the Canadian public.
:
Thank you very much for coming this morning.
I found your presentation very interesting. You raised a number of the questions we ourselves have been asking.
I'm very interested in this fire sale of public assets based on our obligation, after we've sold off our assets, to continue to pay for the upgrades. We've looked at the numbers, and what is very clear is that as soon as we sell these assets, there'll be an initial first-time bump that will no doubt be able to claim as great fiscal management on the part of the Conservative government, but then we will be faced with the costs that go three and four times higher than what we're normally paying, and we pay that for 25 years. The end of that 25-year period is what interests me; what happens then?
When I was a young lad back in 1982, if someone offered me a deal for 25 years, I would certainly have agreed, because 25 years is a lifetime. Now as I get a little older, I realize that Faustian bargain we get ourselves into: in the life of a country, 25 years is not very long. In key urban centres we've already sold off key pieces of urban real estate that we will now be on the hook for in 25 years. If we want to continue to use those, we will be paying full market value.
Have you looked at the issue of what happens at the end of the 25-year period and what it means for the government departments that will have to be paying full market value either to access the buildings we once owned or to buy them back?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Demers, Mr. Burns, I would like to thank you for being here this morning.
The meaning and concept of the word “consultation” aren't the same for me as they are for my colleague Mr. Moore. Consultation, in my opinion, means that the individuals elected by the Canadian population have a responsibility, when they want to create a program, to go to the Canadian population and ask for their opinion. It's fine to consult Hansard and the minutes of this committee's meetings, but it was up to the minister and his officials to do that. In my view, they had a responsibility to go to you and to consult you, you and other organizations who are stakeholders in this affair. I find this extremely unfortunate, and this is a trend that we've noticed, in the House, with regard to government programs.
I also have a question to ask you. On page 5 of your presentation, you say that, according to a 2003 Statistics Canada study, public infrastructure lowers the cost of producing a given level of output in virtually every Canadian industry. I would like you to explain to me how and why. I wonder if that's the case, as Statistics Canada noted in 2003, if that isn't an indirect, or perhaps even a direct, consequence, of the management of businesses for the Canadian economy, since we know that there are thousands of Canadians involved in construction. Could you explain that to us, please?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome to our witnesses. I think everyone shares our passion of purpose on this. There obviously are some differences of opinion, but it's just that. If you were to talk to Canadians in general, you'd probably have 30 million different opinions. Our duty as a committee is to report not on what we want, wish, feel, see, not just what tears at the heart, but the factual information that is presented to this committee. That's the one point that sort of does concern me with your position right now, although certainly no offence is meant from this.
Obviously, as stated by Mr. Moore, we've had the minister directly, five times, before this committee on the issue. We have heard from many, many expert witnesses, whether in the private field, the public field, or the educational field. We've heard from professors, ministers, deputy ministers, financial experts. We've heard a pile of pros and cons on this entire topic.
The committee came to its deliberations based on the testimony that was given, the specific testimony on specific topics, on specific rental leases--understanding, of course, that the devil can be in the details in many leaseback arrangements and/or whatever else notwithstanding.
As an example, the CBC building in Toronto has been deemed by many in the professional field to be one of the most idealistic lease arrangements that they have seen. It really covered both ends of the spectrum, with built-in protection for both owner and lessee. The decision to learn from of all of these things and the information that came to this committee really established the best practices for us to go forward.
That's why I really think it's incumbent on you to fully evaluate the testimony that has been given here and perhaps come back to this committee, after having fully evaluated all of the detailed testimony from previous governments, in addition to our government's--and all of the other independent parties'--on this issue.
I'm not suggesting your assessment might not be correct--it might not change, or it might--but I really have difficulty with, “Well, in the opinion of The Globe and Mail....” With all due respect to our national media, they obviously didn't sit through the hours and hours of testimony from the witnesses that this committee did before it passed its opinion. Unfortunately, a number of our new committee members here as well, although well-intentioned, did not listen either to the countless hours of testimony on this issue that this committee did before passing judgment.
We have not come up with our final conclusions, obviously, and your testimony is important. Might I ask you once again, what particular comment, what particular statement, what particular testimony are you in direct contradiction with or do not agree with?
I think it's an unfair question to ask you right now....
Do you know what? I'm going to end this right now, and I'm going to tell you that as a former Minister of Public Works, and as a person who has been in Ottawa as a representative for almost 20 years, I remain to be convinced one way or the other. I've been chairing this committee throughout all the hearings, and I'm still not convinced. Now, I know that there are times when there are good deals and there are others that aren't so good, but I still remain to be convinced to this day. There's an awful lot of information here, and sometimes it's very difficult to really know.
Thank you very much for coming before us.
We'll just take a minute break so we can hear from our next witness, Madame Bull, who is the executive director of the Heritage Canada Foundation. This next segment will be about heritage buildings in Canada.
:
Thank you for the invitation to present to the committee.
The Heritage Canada Foundation is an independent charitable organization with a public mandate to promote the protection, rehabilitation, and sustainable reuse of Canada's historic buildings. You may have heard recently about our “Make Landmarks, Not Landfill” campaign.
You might ask why the Heritage Canada Foundation is interested in this topic and why we've been invited. The federal government is a major property holder and counts more than 1,300 designated heritage buildings among its inventory. There are many more buildings that are eligible for review as heritage buildings but are in a backlog not yet reviewed, so that number could be much higher. Buildings are getting older every day, so the numbers rise regularly.
Canadians look to their federal government for leadership and as an example. Therefore, federal actions and decisions about the treatment of heritage buildings is of great interest to the Heritage Canada Foundation.
The 35 buildings in the real estate study included many heritage buildings, such as the Dominion Building in Toronto, the National Printing Bureau in Gatineau, the East Memorial building in Ottawa, and the Wellington Building that we're sitting in today. I'm sure you noticed its beautiful public spaces as you came in. It also included a number of what we would call recent heritage buildings, or potential heritage buildings, like the Gatineau Preservation Centre and the Asticou Centre. These are buildings that have a special architectural quality and would likely be considered heritage buildings at some point.
Our concerns fall into two areas. One is the important role of the federal government as a trustee of legacy buildings. Our second concern is the risk that heritage buildings face when they leave the federal inventory. I'd like to say a few words about those two ideas.
The first one is the question of legacy. Federal buildings are about accommodating civil servants, but they do a lot more than that. Traditionally they were designed to make a big impression and to reflect our ideals as a nation. They were built to last as public landmarks and monuments and they really represented the federal presence in towns and cities across the country. They were also designed to demonstrate high standards of design and construction, and they often showcased some of our best architects. In short, we would say that they represent a legacy that belongs to all taxpayers.
If you're not familiar with this study, called Crown Assets: The Architecture of the Department of Public Works, I would really encourage you to have a look at it. I can certainly make it available to the committee. It really looks at the great architectural legacy of the Department of Public Works.
I would encourage you to consider the example set by Public Works' equivalent in the U.S., the General Services Administration. Like Public Works, GSA has had to deal with the rationalizing of their inventory, and they have sold buildings, but in the process of doing that, they've also recognized that some federal buildings have not only a monetary value but a cultural value, and that they are part of a legacy held in public trust. GSA's first study about grappling with its inventory was called Held in Public Trust.
GSA has systematically exploited and benefited from the public relations potential of their legacy buildings, their special architectural buildings, through a number of programs that they use strategically to generate good news stories and to connect citizens with the federal presence through great architecture. Again, I won't go into detail, but there are a number of programs where they've invested and highlighted the quality of their great historic buildings.
I also wanted to bring to your attention the U.S. federal government's "heritage first" policy, which increases the market demand for heritage buildings, both inside and outside government. Since 1996, all federal agencies are required to fill their accommodation needs by first turning to underutilized heritage buildings in their own portfolio or in the private sector.
That's a way to help make landmarks, not landfill. It ensures that the private sector responds by rehabilitating and purchasing historic buildings, knowing there might be a viable market for them. We urge government to follow GSA's example and treat its heritage buildings as assets worth retaining and investing in.
I could also tell you about a GSA study that actually showed operational costs for heritage buildings coming in at a lower cost than some modern office accommodations, for a number of reasons.
The second point I wanted to discuss is the risk posed by gaps in protection when buildings leave the federal inventory. While buildings are in federal ownership, heritage buildings are subject to the federal heritage buildings policy, which is deeply flawed, but it does provide a basic standard. It does require a certain level of scrutiny and review of any changes or the proposed sale of heritage buildings. That's completed by staff with expertise in heritage conservation. It really represents a certain degree of commitment to protecting the character of buildings throughout their life cycle.
How do you ensure that same scrutiny and protection will continue once the building leaves federal hands? Fundamentally we believe the only effective strategy for protecting heritage buildings through changes in ownership is by protective covenants registered on title.
Current disposal practice, according to the Treasury Board “Guide to the Management of Real Property”, requires the government to make best efforts toward protection, but it does not require a covenant or some other form of statutory protection as a condition of sale. And it's our understanding that two of the three heritage buildings that were sold as part of the first batch in August do not have protective covenants registered on title. Without such protection, the risk is that these buildings will be inappropriately altered over time in ways that would compromise their heritage value and their design, and that even demolition could occur. We've actually seen that in some cases.
In closing, we have a couple of recommendations we'd like to bring to you. The first one is that before considering disposal, government give due consideration to the fact that some federal buildings have cultural and symbolic value and that they really are part of the national legacy that should continue to be held in public trust.
Secondly, we would encourage you to consider enacting statutory protection for federal historic places in the form of the long-anticipated proposed Canada historic places act. That should include statutory protection and maintenance standards for federally owned and regulated historic places; heritage first provisions, as I described to you, which exist in the U.S., that would promote the reuse of existing buildings in a sustainable way; and finally, the requirement for protective covenants registered on title for architecturally and historically significant buildings sold out of the inventory.
Thank you very much.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I also want to thank our witness and congratulate Heritage Canada Foundation for the amazing work they've been doing over the years.
I think you're absolutely right that the collection we have of buildings and heritage assets across the country is quite fundamental to our country's essence of what we are as a people and as a nation. It's really the soul of what Canada is all about. If we destroy that, we really destroy our history. And it's very important that we do everything possible to maintain them.
I understand your recommendations and your concerns. There is a need to be more proactive, certainly to make all efforts. But beyond that, I like your suggestion about the statutory protection of the covenant, because I think you're right, just to make the best efforts is not always good enough and you're always worried about what's going to happen to these historic buildings down the road.
I think we don't do enough, for whatever reason, compared to most western countries. I was born in Europe, and I find we just don't have this great attachment to our historic buildings as we should. And every time we spend money, people always misconstrue it, even the media, and we politicians do it ourselves. We're constantly critical, saying that it's just wasting money. It's not wasting money; it's really protecting our history and what Canada is all about. It's really important that we spend a good amount of time dealing with heritage issues, because it's so fundamentally important.
Even, for example, on renovating 24 Sussex Drive or Rideau Hall, people get very worried about that. I find it appalling that people don't understand that this belongs to all Canadians. It doesn't belong to the Prime Minister or the Governor General; it belongs to all of us for all time.
I get very saddened when I hear comments from people that belittle our history and belittle these important monuments we have, and when there's not enough attention paid to them, because they don't belong to one individual; they belong to all of us for all time, for present generations and future generations as well.
I really like the idea you're suggesting about a covenant. Could you give us some practical ways we can make sure this is within our agreements?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for being here today.
I'm sure I speak for all of my colleagues when I say we're all interested in preserving the heritage of our communities. In my area there is a very active heritage group that's working diligently at protecting the character of buildings and other structures in my riding.
I'd just like to say as well that I don't remember having seen this before, but I would welcome this. Maybe it comes to our office and my staff files it with the hundreds of others, but it is a great magazine. Maybe you could come up to the Waterloo region some time and focus, for example, on the Walper Terrace Hotel, Doon Pioneer Memorial Tower, West Montrose Covered Bridge, and other structures, bridges, and barns and so on that have been designated. I applaud the work of heritage communities.
I want to come back to your three recommendations for a minute. I don't have it in writing so I may not have it accurately, but in your first recommendation there was something to the effect that before the government considers sales of its buildings, it should give consideration to the cultural value. I don't think you're implying that didn't happen, but I just wanted to point out that in fact there was a pretty detailed study done and consultation took place with provinces and municipalities in these jurisdictions in the interest of having their buildings designated. I think that piece is in place.
Also, as I'm sure you're aware, we did include, as in your third recommendation, that there be a protection covenant or something to that effect, and that also was included in the sale-leaseback agreement to protect the heritage character of these designated buildings.
I just wonder if you could comment. Those are two of your recommendations, your first and third, and my understanding is that those are already being worked on or have been done. What are the shortfalls in terms of what your ideals are from your recommendations and what I perceive we are already doing as a government?
I found this an excellent presentation. It was very clear. I think it's given us a number of issues that we should be looking at. It's incumbent upon us.
I am very partial to our heritage buildings. When I was a wee lad growing up in a northern mining town, our notion of the federal assets was the Parliament Buildings. When we finally got to come to Ottawa, we did what every Canadian seems to do: we came to the wonderful grounds, the great open public commons that exist on Parliament Hill, and saw the buildings.
I find today, when I see all the young school groups coming, I'm ashamed at the condition of the buildings. West Block looks as though it's being held together by my old granny's knickers. We have trapezes all over the place, not because we're building, but to catch falling chimneys. These are the premier federal buildings of Canada. If you walk through West Block and you see the plastic sheets up on the inside to hold the rainwater, it's a shame. These are symbols of what our country is.
I know for a fact that the fixing of these buildings is difficult, because you need stonemasons, and stonemasons are rare these days. We actually built, I understand, a team of stonemasons to come to Ottawa to put this together, and now they're leaving because nobody at Treasury Board seems to want to actually okay the work. The longer we go with West Block deteriorating, East Block deteriorating.... We need a vision here to actually deal with this.
If we actually get through this next three-week monkey period, I would certainly like in the spring, if we are still around, to raise the issue of our federal buildings here on Parliament Hill and to see what plans are in place to move beyond holding them together with nylons and strings to actually building them.
But that was an opening rant, because I think it is indicative of the need for us to be more careful, as a federal government, with our federal assets.
I'm very interested in what you're saying about this issue of covenant and title. I would actually ask that information on how the sale of these buildings was done be brought forward so we can see if the covenant is on title. Does it need to be? These would be recommendations that we would certainly be able to bring forward. I think it's incumbent upon us to bring them forward.
I'm going to ask you just a simple question, because I think you've been very clear in what needs to be done and clear in your recommendations.
In terms of the government's need to ensure the development and protection of heritage sites, we did have a program--did we not?--that encouraged private sector companies to actually renovate and maintain buildings rather than turning them into landfill. These were not necessarily federal buildings. These were buildings like Barrington Street, in Halifax, and the old Gooderham and Worts in Toronto, places that otherwise would have gone under the wrecking ball. It was actually an innovative tax incentive program that allowed the private sector to decide that it's worth saving these buildings and it's worth making them usable in the 21st century. That program was cancelled recently.
Can you explain what you think would need to be done in order to encourage that these heritage buildings not hit the landfill?
:
Thank you. I just wanted to comment before I get to my last question. I'm glad to hear that Mr. Angus is considering recognizing the value of private enterprise and working along with the heritage people to preserve their assets.
Personally, I would say I would be more than willing to look at a proposal for some way of studying how we could develop some type of partnership. I think the primary player in this one would have to be municipal or provincial government, but I would certainly be willing to look at a proposal that would incorporate those three levels of government, whether it be a tax break on property taxes, as you suggested, or whatever other kinds of initiatives we could pursue.
I did come back to my third question, and the reason I couldn't find it was that it related to your second recommendation, statutory protection.
Now, I just picked up on a bit of the conversation about a draft bill. Is that the draft bill you were referring to when you answered the previous question, or was that a different issue you were speaking to?