One could read in the pages of Duty, in the context of a recent interview with the Minister of Culture of Quebec, Mathieu Lacombe, that his priority in terms of protection of the built heritage is to “protect what really matters” since, in the opinion of the Minister, it it is not possible to save everything. Admittedly, the official protection statuses in Quebec (classification and citation) mainly target these constructions and sites that are said to be “exceptional”, but by definition, these represent only a tiny portion of all the buildings of heritage interest.
The protection and enhancement of the built heritage must imperatively be approached in a much broader way to include the buildings that characterize the identity, authenticity and personality of neighborhoods, village centers and municipalities. This definition therefore includes in particular many buildings of religious, industrial, residential, agricultural heritage, etc., some of which are of a modest nature, as well as constructions more recent than 1940, which are not a priori covered by the Cultural Heritage Act. .
The production of inventories by the RCMs is an important piece of the puzzle, since it is first necessary to identify and document the buildings and sectors of heritage interest. But, even when these are completed (these inventories are taking a long time in particular despite the addition of resources as the task of catching up is great), they will only constitute part of the solution. In fact, beyond the regulatory measures that should regulate these buildings, we must intensify efforts to raise awareness and educate owners, public decision-makers, professionals and all citizens. And we must also offer financial incentives to really promote the long-term protection of this rich collective asset that constitutes our built heritage, an asset whose value is expressed in cultural, economic and environmental terms (let’s not forget that the “greenest” building is the one that already exists!).
Public awareness of heritage has been at the heart of Héritage Montréal’s actions for almost 50 years, but the State and other public bodies such as municipalities must devote more resources to it in order to do more and better! We believe that a large majority of owners of heritage buildings (individuals, businesses, NPOs, municipalities, etc.) are of good will and wish, with information, support and guidance, to properly maintain, preserve and requalify their properties. We are able to observe that a growing number of citizen groups are mobilizing to find new uses for vacant or threatened buildings in their neighborhoods; it is also necessary to support these local groups with expertise and funding in their efforts and encourage their mobilization.
Currently indifferent if not penalizing, taxation must become an ally in this vast project. For decades, Héritage Montréal has been campaigning for the implementation of tax incentives to influence behavior, encourage investment in the maintenance and revitalization of built heritage and promote exemplary actions. Such measures have been proven elsewhere in the world, notably in the United States, where tax credits reducing the net cost of maintenance and restoration work are offered nationally, in addition to the credits offered by many states. Research that we have undertaken with experts has also made it possible to identify the many vectors of economic spinoffs from built heritage and to identify various financial support measures to promote its development. These measures and tools are known and have proven themselves!
In short, beyond the Law which establishes rules for the protection of heritage (a Law which would certainly require more agility and, for the recalcitrant, more bite), and in the absence of a real heritage policy, we must establish a complete and coherent framework, particularly in connection with the National Policy for Architecture and Regional Planning (PNAAT). Announced in June 2022, it must be accompanied by an action plan which is eagerly awaited, particularly for heritage and landscape.
Beyond raising awareness, Quebec and its population need accompanying measures and financial support and, of course, expertise (professionals, artisans). Otherwise, we cannot hope to preserve, enhance, enrich and bequeath with dignity this rich built and landscaped heritage which, like other parts of our culture, distinguishes Québec and its territory. We owe this as much by duty of memory as by duty towards youth and the future because, when we talk about heritage, we are much less interested in the past than in the future.