Heritage BC Replies: A National Trust
With the fall election behind us and a second Conservative mandate underway, we still have no clear indication what to expect for heritage from Ottawa under this government. The only new heritage initiative from the Conservatives in their first term was the surprise announcement in the 2007 budget that a National Trust would be created. Based on the British model, the Minister of Finance said, it will be independent of government and “protect lands, buildings and national treasurers…(and) receive donations and contributions to ensure its long-term sustainability.” The budget provided $5 million over two years to establish this new entity.
Not much more has happened in the year and a half since. A preliminary roundtable was held in Ottawa early in 2008. Then this past summer, Langley MP Mark Warawa, Parliamentary Secretary for then-environment minister John Baird, invited several agencies to respond to the National Trust proposition. Heritage BC submitted a brief in September.
Heritage BC has some serious reservations about the national trust proposal. Firstly, Canada already has a national trust, the Heritage Canada Foundation. Heritage Canada was set up by the federal government 35 years ago, with a substantial endowment, for very similar purposes (the word “trust” was deleted from the name because of a conflict with a private financial institution). There would seem to be little purpose in setting up a duplicate, competing institution.
Secondly, Heritage BC is very concerned that a national trust dedicated to the acquisition of historic sites, as the reference to the British model implies, will absorb a good deal of available resources but have little significant impact. There are tens of thousands of recognized heritage resources in Canada, but only a handful of these could be purchased and protected. An acquisition program would do little or nothing for the rest.
Experience with site acquisition programs is generally negative. Heritage Canada has already been down this road, and quickly learned that property ownership is costly and not a very practical approach to heritage conservation. An even more dramatic example can be seen here in B.C. where the provincial government has for the past six years been embroiled in the devolution of its Heritage Properties (see related story this issue). Even the British National Trust had $345 million worth of deferred maintenance just three years ago.
While a very few historic places may warrant being set aside to ensure their survival and accessibility to the public, in the vast majority of cases heritage buildings and sites must go on serving a useful purpose to justify the continued investment that keeps them going. Like people, buildings have to work for a living.
Heritage BC’s proposal is that a national trust should serve an umbrella function for the many existing provincial, territorial and regional programs. What we need from the federal government is real help with the front-line efforts to save heritage resources that are going on every day at the local level across the country. A national trust that does not address this reality won’t do much for heritage conservation in Canada.
