Fisheries Committee on April 8th, 2008

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

[Robert Square]

Further to Rick's comments, FHBRO has a point system in the evaluation of their buildings. Looking at some of their evaluations, especially of our light, that would be a mistake in any criteria system for designating the lights.

It has a place, yes, but you need the subjective element of it--what Rick said, what the statement of significance does. It gives you what makes this light, this particular light, this particular property, significant. Why is it heritage? Why should it be protected and preserved?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm going to interrupt, only for the sake of time.

A comment was made, and I want a very quick assessment of how Canada compares to other countries, from your perspective. You deal with other associations and other groups abroad—in Europe, and the United States. How are we faring with respect to keeping up our heritage when it comes to lighthouses right now?

[Robert Square]

As concerns the U.S., which I've been exploring fairly extensively, we lag very far behind the U.S. They have a lighthouse protection manual, produced a number of years ago, which we do not have here in Canada.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mrs. Toxopéus, you talked about Europe at one point.

[Everdina Toxopéus]

Yes. There too they are protecting their lighthouses, are more in tune with their lighthouses and local communities. Some of them, especially in Holland, are also nationally historic, especially the different kinds of architecture that they have.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

So they take an architectural significance, as well.

[Everdina Toxopéus]

Architectural and historical, but most of their lighthouses they need for the coast, because of the nature of the coast. They're still manned.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

As one last point, perhaps, I'm going to pick up on something Mr. Goodacre said. It's coming from a conservation—and I'm thinking environmental conservation—mandate.

I've seen an evolution over time. The notion of “park” has changed in the environmentalist mentality as an exclusive thing to people, that it's out there and you put a wall around it. The interaction between the local human populations and that environment is now being considered as a higher level of environmental protection.

It seems that on an historical basis, when we look at these historic sites, that too remains. The lens that has to be increased and bettered is the reaction between people who are living there now and these historic places, rather than putting a fence around it and circling it in time as a forgotten thing.

Thank you very much for your testimony today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Calkins, you have five minutes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that if I do have any time left, I'd like to share it with Mr. Miller from Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses here, but also I have one question for Mr. Goodacre—given the realm of experience that you have, as I think most have, to answer this question.

Right now, Bill S-215 proposes a new process to define lighthouses as heritage buildings. Currently, in all the processes that I'm aware of, we have the ability to designate places as national historic sites through Parks Canada. There are already heritage lighthouses designated as heritage buildings within Parks Canada, and there is already a process through Treasury Board to designate heritage buildings.

The way I see it, this is a fourth process. Could you differentiate for this committee what Bill S-215 adds in light of comparing and contrasting those other three processes?

[Rick Goodacre]

The natural historic sites process is a process of commemoration. It is a process to recognize special places, people, and events in Canada, so it is not an asset management system. It is not looking at an inventory of buildings within a complete system to decide how to manage this category and that category.

For example, right now, as I said earlier, the national historic sites program is not eager to fund a lot more battlefields, because they've been there; they've done that; they have overextended themselves in that direction. The Parks Canada program of national historic sites, actual parks that are managed by Parks Canada--and in fact they're not really expanding those--is a program to make special places available to the public. They will be managed, particularly interpreted, for the visitor. So it's like a museum program. They have stories they want to tell and places they want to interpret to the Canadian public. Again, a very limited number of places are going to be candidates for a Parks Canada system.

The federal heritage building policy is a blanket program. It is an asset management program, and in fact it covers all of our buildings, and FHBRO, as was mentioned, has the responsibility to identify and rate and classify these buildings in terms of how they'll be treated. You might very well say that that third level is sufficient; we have a program in place. The evidence is that it doesn't work that well, and the reason it doesn't work that well is that it's not backed up by legislation. In fact, if you asked me what was wrong with the lighthouse act, I would say the problem with the lighthouse act is that I'd like to see this kind of legislation for all our heritage buildings in Canada. It isn't there.

When you look at the building I mentioned earlier, the Work Point Barracks, a military building that came down, I'm not saying that it had to stay, but I'm saying that the process that was involved was not adequate and the policies in place to protect that building as an historic place really were not strong enough. They were not backed up by real legislation.

So what we're dealing with here is a special class of buildings within that program. But given that this is a very special class and that it is a unique set of buildings, I would say that it probably is valid to have this particular piece of legislation, much like the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act of the 1980s was identified as something that was needed then because of the change in the railways. We couldn't wait 30 years to figure this out; we had to act then.

So in that sense, I think this piece of legislation takes our blanket heritage policy, federal heritage policy, another step further for this special class of buildings, and it's something we need to do. I would also say that if we don't do it now, if this bill fails, it's not going to come back again and we will only have the dubious privilege of looking back in 20 or 30 years, those of us who are still around, and saying we should have done something and we didn't.

I hope that answers the question.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to say thank you very much to the witnesses for being here today. I apologize for missing your presentations at the start, but I had another issue on another committee that I've been spearheading for a long time and I had to be there. But I'm happy to be here now.

All three of you are involved with organizations with lighthouses in my riding. I put out this question to all of you, but Mr. Goodacre, I appreciate your comments about getting this bill done, that we may never get the chance again. I've been saying much the same thing myself.

To Mr. Square and any other witnesses--you're involved with the Cove Island group--how do you see that this bill helps or enhances what your group is doing there and basically opens up the door? I think the goal here is to try to get as many of these lighthouses in the hands of community groups and what have you across the country. So how do you see this bill working towards that end?

[Robert Square]

I see the bill after it's passed--and I'm talking very presumptuously, I guess--allowing the non-profits and the government to work together. I envision it allowing us into the designation process and the listing of the criteria that will flow from the bill to designate the lights, and I see it as a partnership between us. It doesn't remove all the responsibilities of the government in the preservation process and it doesn't relieve us of our responsibilities either. It's a dual-managed process over the coming years, and it will evolve over the years.

Non-profits have their place. We're able to work a little outside the box that the government is in, and that would be how I see the bill progressing.

[Everdina Toxopéus]

I think it would give us a little bit more stability if legislation were in place that would designate whether it's a heritage site, whether it's within Parks Canada, whether it's within the community, or whatever. If it's designated, then we're not sailing a rocky boat, because right now we're debating if we're going to get the lease or not. If we're not going to get the lease, 10 to 15 years of our work is going to go down the drain, especially in the case of Cabot Head. But if lighthouses like ours were designated by the federal, provincial, or municipal governments, then we'd have that problem out of the way and we could concentrate on our fundraising and upkeep of the lights instead of biting our nails every five years, wondering if we are going to have a lighthouse to work with.

[Rick Goodacre]

You'll create an official process as opposed to an informal process, and I think that needs to be done.

I think there's an enormous importance in legitimizing this relationship, which probably is not there now. This kind of legitimization is largely symbolic, but symbols can be extremely important. It means this is real and this is a relationship the government recognizes. It also creates a legal framework for that to happen.

On the west coast particularly, I think what will happen is that it's going to galvanize people, because right now there's a sleepy attitude about lighthouses on the west coast. Of the 56 lighthouses I have on my list--there's also one historically on one of the interior lakes--half of them are still staffed and the other half are mostly still operational, at least as beacons, and a lot of them are more out of sight than out of mind. The people of B.C. assume things are moving along, and I think there's a lot of latent interest in these places. There's certainly a lot of interest in history and heritage.

So when we see this bill passed, I think people will take action, because the bill contains some time horizons. It has milestones, and you have to respond to it. It's not a bill that puts something passive in place; it creates an active process. So that will be, I think, of great importance and value.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Goodacre.

And thank you once again to our witnesses and to the committee. Your presentations here today, and certainly your answers to our questions, have helped us as we move forward.

On Thursday we will be on clause-by-clause of the bill, and once again I want to advise committee members that anybody who has an amendment to the bill must have it to the clerk by tomorrow, Wednesday.

Thank you once again.

The meeting is adjourned.