In a recent development, the Chinese government has opposed efforts to grant heritage protection to a significant telephone building located in Ottawa, leading the city to pause the proposed plan. The property in question, situated at 251 Besserer St., is a red brick, two-storey structure constructed in the Beaux-Arts architectural style back in 1912. It historically served as the second Bell telephone exchange in Ottawa.
The Ottawa City Council had previously voted to designate the building under the Ontario Heritage Act in May. However, since the property owner is the Chinese government, they were given the opportunity to raise objections. Addressing the concerns raised by China has proven to be a complex task.
In response to the Chinese government’s opposition, the council voted to temporarily retract their intention to designate the property during a recent meeting. This decision followed a recommendation put forth by city staff, who have requested additional time to engage in further discussions with Chinese authorities.
Lesley Collins, the city’s heritage planning program manager, clarified that the staff’s advice to withdraw the designation was not related to the property’s cultural significance, which the city still upholds. Collins emphasized, “Staff maintain their belief that the property is worthy of designation. However, due to the strict timelines outlined in the Heritage Act, extensions are not feasible.”
Councillor Rawlson King, who chairs the built heritage committee, highlighted the challenges in resolving the negotiations before a 90-day deadline lapses. Factors such as language barriers and the necessity to coordinate with Chinese officials abroad and Global Affairs Canada have contributed to the complexities of the situation. King mentioned that the committee could revisit the designation process at a later stage.
Regarding the argument presented by the Chinese government that the property holds diplomatic status and necessitates their consent for any alterations, city heritage department staff acknowledge the diplomatic status of the building but do not fully agree with China’s stance. They pointed out in a report that over 65 diplomatic buildings currently hold heritage designations, underscoring their differing interpretation.
Despite acknowledging potential complications under the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, Collins mentioned that the city is not prohibited from designating the property under the Heritage Act. However, there might be limitations on how the designation could be enforced in the future.
While some city officials expressed concerns about potential double standards in dealing with foreign governments compared to other stakeholders, Heritage Ottawa’s advocacy committee co-chair, Linda Hoad, voiced support for protecting the building. She commended the staff’s approach of temporarily lifting the designation intent to facilitate ongoing negotiations with the Chinese government, expressing hope for a resolution.
The Chinese Embassy declined to provide a statement to CBC regarding their position on this matter.
