Fisheries Committee on April 3rd, 2008

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

We'll go now to Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Going back to people's passion for these lighthouses, I know Mr. Keddy represents the Lighthouse Route. When people drive down there, they will see many lighthouses along the way. It is a tourist attraction.

So the provinces themselves get greatly involved. I know you had mentioned Cape Forchu; the province has part of that.

Newfoundland and Labrador—have you had a chance to speak to the province about the possibility of being a partner in this? Mr. Noreau for Quebec, and Mr. MacDonald for.... I know Nova Scotia has before.

Natalie, can you mention other provinces or territories across the country? Are there other interested parties besides the federal government and local community groups, maybe certain businesses? The provinces themselves may wish to be involved in raising the level of awareness of these lighthouses.

[Natalie Bull]

I think that level of interest is national. These structures attract people and organizations in every province. I know, for example, in British Columbia, the Land Conservancy of B.C. has expressed an interest in acquiring lighthouses they could incorporate into their tourist sites.

[David Bradley]

There have been a variety of arrangements In Newfoundland and Labrador. The provincial government has already been directly involved in a couple of them, the one Mr. Russell mentioned at Point Amour. It was developed in part with funding from the provincial government, but it's managed by a local group. It's a very good two-way relationship.

There are others. Cape Bonavista is entirely a provincial historic sites operation.

We have many other examples where community groups have taken on the task, as in your district, Mr. Matthews, down in Rose Blanche. There is much more of that kind of example than of direct provincial government involvement.

With respect to the provincial government becoming more involved—

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Once this bill was enacted.

[David Bradley]

It's possible. It would depend on the location.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Understandably.

[David Bradley]

And other circumstances.

[Peter Noreau]

From a tourist point of view, the provincial government is a little bit interested in my area, no more than that, in all the lighthouses we have, but no help.

Municipalities, depending where the lighthouse is situated, as Mr. Bradley mentioned, some of them, yes; in my case it's totally no. I have letters on that, saying they're not at all interested. Municipalities, I'd say roughly fifty-fifty, depending on where it's situated, to promote tourism....

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Sure.

[Barry MacDonald]

In Nova Scotia we have limited involvement with the province, I would have to say, at the present time. There are a couple of reasons for that. In Nova Scotia we take our lighthouses seriously, even at the provincial level. Of course Peggy's Cove is our tourist icon and featured on so many of our tourism brochures, and so on.

One of the concerns the Province of Nova Scotia has had for the past several years is that they didn't want to inherit a bunch of lighthouses that had huge price tags associated with them. Environmental cleanup was one of their biggest concerns.

We've had preliminary discussions with our tourism minister within the last two months about this, and the Province of Nova Scotia is waiting, like a lot of people, to see where this act is going. I think the act is going to play a part in their direct involvement. They fully realize the lighthouses' tourism and economic value, as Mr. Stoffer said. In Mr. Keddy's riding, on the way down Highway 103, there's a huge sign that was recently put up, “The Lighthouse Route”.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Yes, a great big one.

[Barry MacDonald]

You can't miss it; it's as big as the wall back there.

So the province fully realizes the tourism value, and they also realize the cultural and heritage value. The lighthouses are very much a part of the heritage fabric of our province, as they are in all maritime provinces, wherever you are—whether the Great Lakes, the west coast, or Lake Winnipeg, it's the same thing. So I think we can count on the Province of Nova Scotia for increased involvement as time goes on, and with the passage of this act, as I said.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming and for your interest in and support of this piece of legislation.

I just have one question, and then I'll defer to my colleague, Mr. Calkins.

As you know, within the federal inventory there are both operational lighthouses and those considered to be surplus. The bill refers to those surplus lighthouses, as well as others. The designation process in the bill can apply to both, in that both can be designated and petitioned. So my question for each of you, or your organizations, is whether your primary interest is in acquiring surplus lighthouses, or in designating operational lighthouses, with no intention of.... Are you just doing it for their heritage value, for example, rather than seeing them being divested at some point in the future, if you understand my question?

[Natalie Bull]

I think from Heritage Canada Foundation's perspective, the goal is to look at lighthouses and in a triage process to identify the ones that are worthy of designation and protection. That really is regardless of ownership. The goal is basically to review the lighthouses that exist, and then from there you can give appropriate priority to certain lighthouses, whether they will stay in the federal inventory or be moved into another form of ownership through the process allowed for in the act.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Bradley.

[David Bradley]

I don't think any heritage organization in the country wants to rush out and acquire federal buildings when the federal government still has a purpose for them and still wants to operate them. That's the best scenario, even for historic lighthouses—if they're still operational. Heritage groups step into the fold when there's a need. Obviously, there's going to be significant need in the country in that respect, because lighthouses are being decommissioned.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Yes, but where I'm trying to go with this question is to ask if you are simply interested, as I think Ms. Bull said, in getting involved in the petitioning process to have, let's say, a large number of lighthouses—and perhaps you have a number in mind, as you've already looked at the inventory of lighthouses, whether they're operational or not—that you think should be designated and come under the protection of this act, rather than looking forward to acquiring federal property at some point. Are you just interested in the process of saying you think that's a lighthouse that should be protected for heritage purposes, regardless of whether you think somebody else should own and operate it at some time in the future?

[David Bradley]

We're interested in both. We want to make sure that the properties are protected, and if the federal government is interested in maintaining those properties, we consider that to be the best scenario. But in cases where that's not going to happen, we have to look for alternatives.

[Natalie Bull]

I think that regardless of ownership, these are structures that are facing a particular kind of pressure right now. Regardless of ownership, there's a need to look at what we have and make some identification of priorities before we move forward.

[Barry MacDonald]

I can speak to this in two ways. As I said earlier in my presentation, part of our mandate, at the end of the day, is to get as many of these lighthouses transferred to community groups as there are viable community groups who will accept them. That definitely is part of our mandate.

To speak to the other part of your question, there are lighthouses and there are situations where.... I'll use the example of Sambro Island, off the mouth of Halifax harbour, which this year celebrates 250 years. It was just featured on a Canada Post stamp in December. It's the oldest operating lighthouse in North and South America, so it has a ton of history behind it.

Unless the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have changed their mind recently, we were told that this lighthouse is not on the block for divestiture. Yet it's been a classified structure under FHBRO for the past ten years now. There's also an associated gashouse on the property, where acetylene gas was manufactured, and that's a recognized structure under FHBRO.

This, I think, is what you're getting at. This is the flagship lighthouse for our society, the one that's featured on our pin. We will definitely be sending a petition to the minister to have that one declared a heritage light station, even though we've been told that it's not up for grabs, that it's not on the block for divestiture.

There are also some examples on the west coast, in Senator Carney's country. Estevan Point, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, is one I like to cite. That's a flying buttress tower that was designed by our famous Canadian marine architect, William P. Anderson; there's one in Pointe-au-Père that's very similar. It's a very famous lighthouse, because Colonel Anderson apparently camped out on site while the lighthouse was being built in 1910. It has a historic Chance Brothers lantern room in it. It just says “heritage” all over it; yet it's one for which it's very doubtful there will be a community group capable of having it transferred to them, because of its location. Does that make it any less important on the heritage scale? I don't think so. It should be a designated heritage lighthouse.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

Thank you very much.

That concludes our second round of questioning. I'm at the guidance of my colleagues. If you want to continue for another little bit, we can. I understand Mr. Calkins wants to.

If colleagues are agreeable, then we'll use the flexibility of another couple of minutes, if you so desire.

I'm going to let Mr. Calkins go, and that will finish them up. Then we'll come back to finish this round.

Mr. Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I wanted to suggest that we open the floor to members who have not yet had the opportunity to put their questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bill Matthews]

I have no problem with that, if it's the desire of my colleagues.

Mr. Calkins, go ahead for a couple of minutes, please.