Evidence of meeting #22 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lighthouses.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Natalie Bull  Executive Director, Heritage Canada Foundation
Barry MacDonald  President, Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society
Peter Noreau  Vice-President, Corporation des gestionnaires de phares de l'estuaire et du golfe du Saint-Laurent
David Bradley  Chair, Association of Heritage Industries of Newfoundland and Labrador

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning

I call the meeting to order.

I apologize for my lateness. I was on a telephone call to Newfoundland. I sent word that I'd be a few minutes late, but Mr. Matthews didn't jump at the challenge.

9:10 a.m.

A voice

It was those carrier pigeons you used.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning

He'll jump to it at 10 o'clock; I have to leave early.

I want to welcome everybody here, and welcome our witnesses. My understanding is that each witness has a few opening remarks they would like to make. The order I have in front of me is that Ms. Natalie Bull will be going first. Ms. Bull represents the Heritage Canada Foundation. Following Ms. Bull will be Barry MacDonald, who's the president of the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society. Following Barry will be Peter Noreau, vice-president...and I'll be honest with you, sir, I'm not going to try the rest of it, so I'll let you explain your organization when you get the opportunity to speak. And then we have Mr. David Bradley, who is the chair of the Association of Heritage Industries of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Welcome, everybody. As you're fully aware, we started a process last week in regard to Bill S-215. We're delighted that you took the time to join us here today. Following your opening remarks, the floor will be open for questions from our members to ask you anything they might be interested in.

Ms. Bull, the floor is yours.

April 3rd, 2008 / 9:10 a.m.

Natalie Bull Executive Director, Heritage Canada Foundation

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of Bill S-215, an act to protect heritage lighthouses.

First I'll say a few words about the Heritage Canada Foundation. We are an independent charitable organization with a public mandate to promote the rehabilitation and sustainable reuse of Canada's built heritage.

I'd like to commend the many Members of Parliament, senators, organizations, and citizens who've worked tirelessly toward making protection for lighthouses a reality. In particular, I'd like to recognize the late Senator Forrestall, Senator Carney, Senator Murray, and members of Parliament Larry Miller, Gerald Keddy, and Peter Stoffer, among many others who've worked to make this a reality.

I think we can all agree on the landmark status many lighthouses have in their communities. Beyond their role as landmarks and icons, lighthouses have undeniable economic value. They are used extensively in marketing so many Canadian places as tourist destinations, and many are significant destinations in and of themselves. Today I'd like to emphasize why Bill S-215 is needed by clarifying how heritage conservation is regulated and legislated in this country. I think it would provide a useful context. I'd also like to share an example from a parallel universe.

All provincial and territorial jurisdictions, and by delegated authority all municipal governments in Canada, have binding heritage statutes and related legal measures they can use to protect heritage places. However, federal historic places—think of the post offices, the Government of Canada buildings and armouries in your own ridings, for example—have no such protection. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. Canada is the only G-8 nation without such protection for its own buildings. Indeed, we're a full 40 years behind the United States in establishing a national heritage act.

Since 1987 the federal government of Canada has dealt with heritage through the federal heritage buildings policy, but this policy framework is insufficient. Indeed, in November 2003 the Auditor General of Canada reported that built heritage under federal control “will be lost to future generations unless action to protect it is taken soon”.

The Auditor General's audit revealed a lack of accountability for heritage protection and called for strengthening the federal legal framework to protect heritage property. In the 1980s this lack of legal protection and lack of accountability reached a crisis point for a particular type of endangered federal heritage building: historic railway stations. Some were being dramatically altered to accommodate changes in railway technology, others were declared redundant and left to deteriorate, and too many were bulldozed into landfill sites while horrified citizens protested. Canadians discovered that no heritage railway station had any form of protection and that they had no voice in determining the future of these iconic structures. Even railway stations that had already been declared national historic sites by the Government of Canada had no legal protection.

Canadians protested, and the government responded with the introduction of the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act. An exact parallel now exists with heritage lighthouses. Like railway stations, they are at risk of becoming an endangered species. New technology and other forces have made many of them redundant, and their federal custodian does not have a heritage conservation mandate. Lighthouses are a special class of heritage facing unusual pressures, and there is a pressing need to get protection in place. Note that even in the U.S., where there is a national heritage act to protect historic places, the legislation that applies for heritage lighthouses exists as a separate amendment, and it's comparable to Bill S-215. So proceeding with Bill S-215 now, without further delay, is entirely appropriate and absolutely essential.

What are the strengths of Bill S-215? It's modelled on the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, and it basically provides a systematic and legally binding mechanism for the recognition, protection, maintenance, and potential disposal of heritage lighthouses. One of the key deficiencies of current federal heritage policy is that citizens are not consulted when a lighthouse is altered, transferred, or destroyed. This act would engage communities in the protection of their historic places by putting a clear process in place, and it would increase accountability by providing opportunities for public scrutiny.

Briefly, Bill S-215 provides a means for evaluating lighthouses and identifying those worthy of designation as heritage lighthouses. So it's not about all of them; it's about the special ones. It provides an opportunity for public consultation before alterations are made to those designated lighthouses. It requires public notice before transfer, sale, or demolition. It requires that a designated heritage lighthouse be reasonably maintained. And it facilitates ongoing protection and ensures use for a public purpose when heritage lighthouses are transferred out of federal ownership.

These measures will increase the chances of long-term protection for designated lighthouses, whether they stay in the federal inventory or whether they are transferred to other owners.

The amendments under discussion to better define the scope of the act—namely, the change to related buildings rather than related structures—should not deter this committee from supporting this bill and sending it back to the House for third reading.

In closing, thank you all very much for your work in refining this bill. Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the discussion, and godspeed in your deliberations.

Thank you.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning

Thank you, Ms. Bull.

Mr. MacDonald.

9:15 a.m.

Barry MacDonald President, Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to this committee on Bill S-215, which seeks to protect our heritage lighthouses.

It's been a long road since the first meeting of the lighthouse protection act committee was held in Halifax in early 1999. In February of 2000 the late Senator Michael Forrestall met with our committee and presented us with the first draft of what was to be Bill S-21.

I've been involved in lighthouse preservation for the past 12 years, and have served as president of the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society for the past five years. During this time I've had the pleasure of giving lighthouse talks in the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and British Columbia. I have been consistently impressed with the positive response I have received. I've seen evidence of the strong bond that exists between people in these communities and the lighthouses that have served them and their forefathers.

Lighthouses are given almost a spiritual value by people in these maritime communities and rate in importance with the church. To verify the spiritual connection we have only to look back in history to see that administration of early aids to navigation along the St. Lawrence River was entrusted to the Jesuits and Trinity House.

People in these communities aIl across Canada have become increasingly concerned with the welfare of these very special structures. I could give you many stories of fundraising efforts involving bake sales, bingos, etc., ideas that money-strapped community groups come up with to save and protect a fixture in their community that they hoId dear—their lighthouse.

I cannot say enough for the volunteer effort put forth by people across the country, an effort that I feel should be taken into account by our lawmakers as they consider this legislation. Bill S-215 will send a strong message of acknowledgement and added incentive to these hard-working Canadians.

Lighthouse preservation is alive and weIl aIl across this country, but it's not new. l'd like to give you one very early example. ln 1967 the Puntney family of Morson, Ontario, located in the Lake of the Woods region of western Ontario, rescued the obsolete Tomahawk Island lighthouse, towing it across the ice and relocating it on their property. Since that time, the Puntney family has carefully maintained this lighthouse and proudly shows it off to anyone who cares to visit.

This is only one example of early efforts to preserve these maritime beacons. And efforts at lighthouse preservation continue on a larger scale today, with groups located in almost all provinces with lighthouses on their shores.

There are many examples of success stories, and I would like to talk about a few in the Maritimes. The Cape Forchu lighthouse in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, was the first lighthouse in Canada passed over under what we now know as the DFO divestiture program. This project was a cooperative effort involving the Friends of the Yarmouth Light, a not-for-profit community group, the Town of Yarmouth, and the Province of Nova Scotia. This transfer took place in 2000 and this community group is still alive and well and greets thousands of tourists in the town of Yarmouth each year.

A pioneering effort began in Prince Edward Island in 1984 with the lease of the West Point lighthouse. A well-organized development plan saw ten rooms, a full-menu restaurant, and a gift shop in place by 1987. A real success story, this lighthouse has consistently employed 25 local people and is a major tourism destination on Prince Edward Island.

Lastly, in the Province of New Brunswick the award-winning Cape Enrage Interpretative Centre welcomes over 40,000 visitors per year to this rugged Fundy shore location. This non-profit group generates annual revenues of $350,000 and has a payroll of $120,000, employing approximately 20 students. This dynamic group has been in business since 1993 and hasn't looked back.

These are but a few examples of the alternative uses that volunteer groups have found for their lighthouses.

We must recognize and protect the rich architecture that is present in our lighthouses across this country, from the British influence seen in lighthouses across Newfoundland and Labrador, to the majestic “imperial towers” of the Great lakes, Quebec, and British Columbia, to the work of the famous Canadian architect, Colonel William P. Anderson, in light towers such as Pointe-au-Père in Quebec, and Estevan Point in B.C., to name only two. And of course we cannot forget the humble pepper-shaker-style wooden lighthouse that was developed in Canada and still dots our shores to this day. Few countries can lay claim to such an eclectic mix of lighthouse architecture.

Since the formation of the World Lighthouse Society in 2004, many articles have been written by that society about our rich lighthouse history and our attempts at securing federal legislation. Passage of Bill S-215 will send a strong message to our friends around the world that we take our lighthouse heritage very seriously.

In closing, I would like to thank everyone who has worked to get us to where we are today. We all remember the late Senator Michael Forrestall, who was the first one to come to Nova Scotia and work with us, and Senator Pat Carney, who's put a great effort into this act over the past several years, as well as Senator Lowell Murray. I'd like to thank also the local MP Gerald Keddy, from Nova Scotia, who's put a lot into this bill, as well as MP Larry Miller, who has currently introduced it. And last but not least is Peter Stoffer, from Nova Scotia, who has consistently supported our efforts with this lighthouse legislation.

Few pieces of legislation have ever seen this many attempts, and I think this speaks volumes for the tenacity of those involved and for the high regard in which lighthouses are held in this country. I join with Larry Miller in saying let's make this seven times lucky.

Thank you for your time.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

Mr. Noreau.

9:20 a.m.

Peter Noreau Vice-President, Corporation des gestionnaires de phares de l'estuaire et du golfe du Saint-Laurent

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to everyone.

I'm representing the Corporation des gestionnaires de phares de l'estuaire et du golfe du Saint-Laurent, which means, in English, the corporation that is taking care of the 43 lighthouses on the St. Lawrence River within the boundaries of Quebec.

I'm not going to repeat everything that's been said so far this morning. I'm so amazed to see that this bill is getting to be put in place eventually—and shortly, I was told. It's going to be quite an issue, because, in my words, I think we need our people who are in authority to give us some guidelines as to where we're going with the protection of our lighthouses.

As a quick example, in L'Actualité of August 2000—it's a French general magazine—it stated that 3% of the lighthouses are preserved in Canada, 77% in the United States, and 100% in Europe. I've been invited to France several times to visit with some of those people. What I'm trying to say is that once the bill is in place and we get things organized legally, etc., I'm just going to screech out and say we need help financially to keep those buildings.

I'm not preaching only for my case. We're working hard to preserve these lighthouses on the St. Lawrence. I'm talking about my area. Personally, I've put in a little over $270,000 to save one lighthouse. That's what I decided in my life; I thought it was that important. It dates from 1894; it's extremely isolated, and blah, blah, blah. There were tons of garbage on that. I have pictures to show. The work I had to do to get this lighthouse back in shape is just incredible. Now it's in immaculate condition.

So these guidelines that are coming down the road ahead of us, I'm quite impressed by that. Finally—I'm saying finally—we're getting something. You just wouldn't believe in the U.K. and Ireland and in France the support they get from their governments over there. It's just amazing. I'm an old skipper with Air Canada; I just retired a few months ago. I was there 37 years and 11 months, so I had a chance to travel quite a bit, and I met all kinds of people. I got involved in the lighthouse business, and it's just amazing.

So we need your guidelines from a point of view of law, structures, etc., but I'm just here to scream for help. We need a few dollars out there to get our lighthouses on the go.

Thank you very much. That's all I had to say.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning

Thank you, Mr. Noreau. I think you got your point across loud and clear.

9:25 a.m.

Vice-President, Corporation des gestionnaires de phares de l'estuaire et du golfe du Saint-Laurent

Peter Noreau

I'm an old Frenchman, but my mom was Irish, you see, so maybe the blood circulates differently.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning

Irish blood certainly circulates differently. I know all about that.

Last, but by no means least, from Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Bradley.

9:25 a.m.

David Bradley Chair, Association of Heritage Industries of Newfoundland and Labrador

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the committee on this issue.

I see a lot of familiar faces from my province around the table, and I guess that's a testament to the importance of fisheries matters to the province. Lighthouses may seem to be relatively less important compared to some of the major issues, but still it's an issue in which a lot of people are interested, and it's something that has to be addressed.

The Association of Heritage Industries, which I represent here today, is an umbrella group of volunteer provincial heritage organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador. The organizations that make up AHI include those with a direct interest or mandate in the protection of built heritage.

Much has been done at the provincial level. Several lighthouses have been preserved by either the provincial government or volunteer heritage groups. In the first half of this decade, the Lighthouse Society of Newfoundland and Labrador worked diligently for the preservation of lighthouses in the province. We also acknowledge that since 2000, coast guard officials in the province have undertaken their own research initiatives to document the knowledge and history of lighthouses. We support these efforts and we support this bill.

Canada's cultural heritage is vital to our identity and sense of place. The built heritage is the most vivid physical representation of that cultural heritage, and is therefore worthy of preservation in all its forms. As with railway stations, lighthouses have a special significance to Canadians. They are iconic structures. Many have significant architecture. But their importance stems more from their role in Canadian history. Often standing in relative isolation on islands or headlands, they have been the first evidence of Canadian culture encountered by generations of immigrants to this country. Many lighthouses have been guiding fishermen and mariners to port since the age of sail, and they stand as a testament to the tragedies throughout history that have befallen thousands of Canadian fishermen and mariners who, due to harsh conditions of climate, coast, and sea, were unable to bring their vessels to port.

How then will Bill S-215 help protect these historic structures? It will not guarantee that every historic lighthouse in Canada has a secure future. However, if passed, the bill will ensure that lighthouses are subjected to a formal process to determine their value for designation and protection. It would compel the government to assess lighthouses in its inventory and to consider which should be saved for posterity. However, when the government decides that it must dispose of a lighthouse, the public will be notified in advance, and in these cases there will be a mechanism for transferring the affected structures to interested third parties who come forward.

Process and communication are the keys here, a process that is relatively straightforward and can be understood and followed by Canadians, and which requires the government to communicate with its citizens before disposing of the structures. In this way, Canadians and their government can work together to protect the country's lighthouses, and this is something that Canadians and their parliamentarians can agree is a desirable goal.

This brings me to the question of support for Bill S-215. I think it's fair to say that this bill has been around the block a few times. It's about to make its seventh appearance before the House of Commons. The issue and its proponents are clearly undeterred by rejection, but there are limits to the ability of even the most resilient advocates to continue the fight in the face of insurmountable obstacles. However, it appears that the landscape has changed now. With each reincarnation of the bill, there has been more discussion and more input at all levels. Lessons have been learned and compromises have been made on all sides.

In fact, we think there is a consensus in the making now. In such circumstances, it is tempting to consider Margaret Thatcher's firmly held definition of consensus as something to which everybody agrees but which nobody is happy about. But I don't think that's the case here. At least it would be fair to say that the heritage community recognizes that the compromises made along the way were a necessary part of that process, and we are happy with this bill.

Mr. Chair, it is time to move ahead. We therefore seek the committee's support for Bill S-215, and we ask that members offer their individual support when the matter comes before the House.

Thank you.

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning

Thank you, Mr. Bradley.

I thank you all for your presentations.

Certainly we know, as several of you have noted, that this has been ongoing for quite some time, but I believe there's a very positive feeling around the table here this time around, so we look forward to success. We deal with many issues here at the table in regard to fisheries, as you touched on earlier, and the preservation of our lighthouses is something I think we all agree we need to step up to the plate on, and we need to do something to work on it. So that's the purpose of us here today.

We're going to open up the floor for questions now, and we're going to begin with Mr. Byrne.

Welcome, Mr. Russell. I didn't see you when I came in.

I think you want to split your time with Mr. Russell. Did I understand that, Mr. Byrne?

9:30 a.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Yes. Are we going for two rounds today, Mr. Chair?

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning

I'd say we have time for two rounds.

9:30 a.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

We'll probably use.... We'll see how it goes.

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning

We should have plenty of time. This is our witness for today, so basically we'll do a couple of full rounds. So feel free to take whatever time you need.

Your time has started.

9:30 a.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to pick up on something that was mentioned by Ms. Bull and Monsieur Noreau, both of whom noted that heritage infrastructure that is currently under federal protection is underfunded for both protection and maintenance. In fact, the Auditor General's report was pretty ominous on this particular point. We certainly do support this, but we want to get some guidance from you.

Bill S-215 would add to the overall fiscal demands being drawn on for the preservation of heritage infrastructure from a fixed pot. There is no budgetary component built into Bill S-215 whatsoever. Should there be?

Also, if there's not, do you feel that the unfunded responsibilities that are created by this bill could further undermine existing heritage infrastructure because of the lack of funding? The jam is on the toast pretty thinly already. If we add to the overall inventory of heritage infrastructure without any additional funding involved, we're obviously spreading it even thinner still. What would you comment to that?

9:30 a.m.

Executive Director, Heritage Canada Foundation

Natalie Bull

Thank you for your question.

I think it's important to note that the Auditor General recognized not just a lack of funding but also a lack of legal protection as being one of the issues. I think the emphasis of this bill is to put that process and that legal protection in place, and it's an important piece of the puzzle that's currently missing. So I don't think we want to lose sight of that fact.

I think funding is an issue in many areas. The purpose of this is really to put heritage conservation and heritage considerations on an equal footing with other requirements that departments already have to grapple with in managing property they own.

It's not about saying that because these are heritage buildings they all need to be restored instantly and need a significant increase in investment. I think it really is about putting in place a managed process and recognizing there is a need to invest over time.

I think that because this bill also includes measures to facilitate the transfer of heritage lighthouses to other owners who are willing and interested in stepping up to the plate and being part of their preservation and who would have access to other sources of funding that federally owned properties don't necessarily have access to, it does open up a positive future for these structures that they might not otherwise have.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Mr. Noreau, do you wish to comment?

9:35 a.m.

Vice-President, Corporation des gestionnaires de phares de l'estuaire et du golfe du Saint-Laurent

Peter Noreau

Yes. I think once this bill is put in place, the guidelines will be there. Talking about the jam, about spreading the jam, if we have the proper guidelines, as Mrs. Bull was saying, I think there are quite a few people who could be interested in restoring, maintaining, etc., these beautiful lighthouses we have across the country. In my words, it's just a lack of organization that I see now. If the law is there and we have the proper legal guidelines, then we can have a set of guidelines for respecting the funds we may be able to get. That's my thought.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Thank you.

Basically, what you're saying is that the immediate impact on the fiscal framework as a result of passage of this bill would be minimal. You don't anticipate an immediate call for tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars, or millions of dollars even, to immediately be allocated to emergency restoration projects or anything like that. It can be a managed process. Has that summarized it?

9:35 a.m.

Vice-President, Corporation des gestionnaires de phares de l'estuaire et du golfe du Saint-Laurent

Peter Noreau

Managed, so there won't be stupid spending of funds. I'm not saying that at all. We need every little cent, but if it's managed properly, like Barry MacDonald in his region, and David in his region, etc., we'd be happy campers.

9:35 a.m.

Executive Director, Heritage Canada Foundation

Natalie Bull

The legislation actually includes the term “reasonable standards”. That's something that can be discussed, negotiated, and understood as part of the process.

Again, often there is a misconception that a heritage building needs immediate investment and pure restoration back to a certain point in its history. In fact, most heritage advocates are really just interested in making sure that structures are stabilized and that they will be maintained in such a way that over time we don't lose the ability to eventually restore those structures.

9:35 a.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

I think, Monsieur Noreau, your call for observance of the requirements of additional resources built into the heritage structures programming is well noted and appreciated by this committee.

I'm going to ask a question I think I already know the answer to, but I want to get it on the record. Would there be any consequences to lighthouses that have been divested or are on a long-term lease from the government?

David, you may be able to speak to this. There may be a few heritage lighthouses or lighthouse structures that are not fully divested but have actually been leased out from the federal government's inventory to private sector operators. Is there any consequence either to those lighthouses or to their owners as a result of this legislation?

I haven't spoken to the owners of Quirpon Lighthouse, but Mr. MacDonald raised it. Quirpon Lighthouse is on the northern tip of the Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland and has been divested from the coast guard. It is now operated as a private sector bed and breakfast and is highly successful. Does this bill have any ramifications for them?