Bill S-220 (Historical)

Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act

An Act to protect heritage lighthouses

Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

moved that Bill S-220, An Act to protect heritage lighthouses, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-220, seconded by the member for St. John's East.

I would be remiss in my introduction if I did not recognize the hard work done in the other place by Senator Carney to get the bill into the House of Commons. I certainly want to recognize her work.

I also recognize that the bill will occupy a fair amount of time not just from the government side, but from the opposition members, because there is a fair amount of work to do on Bill S-220 in its present form.

In any coastal community lighthouses are an integral part of the landscape. They are part of our culture, our history as a nation, our folklore, our songs and our stories.

The close association of our country to our oceans and our lighthouses is a fundamental part of our Canadian identity. Whether it is the east coast, the west coast, the Arctic, the Great Lakes, the inland waterways, Canadians from all parts of Canada understand the critical role that lighthouses have played in the very development of this nation. Without these majestic towers and the brave and selfless people who ensured that their lights kept burning, our status as a beacon of hope and safety would never have been possible.

In fact, our very role as a trading nation would not have come to be if lighthouses did not mark the way for safe passage for people, commerce and opportunity. Lighthouses have for centuries offered mariners from around the world safe passage and hope. They are part of the core technologies that supported expanded trade and commerce within and between nations.

Increasingly today they are playing a new and important role in the development of our coastal economies. The historic significance of these light towers to the communities of which they are so much a part is irreplaceable, and steps must be taken to preserve and protect Canadian heritage for present and future generations.

Lighthouses are monuments to the Canadian way of life and to the fact that as a country, we depend upon maritime transportation. It would be a great loss if heritage lighthouses were not saved. They are invaluable heritage resources and once gone, so too are the opportunities they represent.

I am truly honoured today to rise in support of this bill that was brought forward originally by my colleague, the late hon. Michael Forrestall, a senator from my province of Nova Scotia who first championed this initiative back in April 2000 and tirelessly worked to ensure its passage. Senator Forrestall said it well several years ago when he stated:

I ask all honourable senators familiar with Nova Scotia and the beautiful tourist trails throughout my home province to imagine the Lighthouse Trail without one lighthouse or its outlying structures. Imagine no more Peggy's Cove; imagine no more Grand Manan Island; imagine no more Gannet Rock Lighthouse. Forget about West Point Lighthouse in P.E.I. or Cape Spear Lighthouse in Newfoundland; forget about Langara Point Lighthouse in British Columbia, probably one of the most beautiful, remote and historically important lighthouses in our structure.

Lighthouses have been sources of salvation to sailors in littoral waters for hundreds of years and have served as the centres of our coastal communities....They are symbols of man's conquests of the high seas and oceans, and in the past have captured the hearts and souls of people world round, as they were the first sight of land upon return to the homeland. No question exists of their place in the human heart or of their simplistic beauty set against the rugged, dark seas. One does not have to hail from the shores of the Atlantic or the Pacific to be attracted to lighthouses.

As sponsor of this bill to protect heritage lighthouses and also as a native of the Lighthouse Route, I am glad to have this opportunity to talk about a subject that is so dear to my heart.

The bill is aligned with the Fisheries and Oceans lighthouse divestiture program which strives to transfer surplus lighthouses to local communities for continued public purposes.

There is no denying that lighthouses have played a key role in the development of Canada as a nation. Indeed, the establishment of many coastal communities across the country was intrinsically linked to the building of their lighthouses and to the harbours to which they guided travellers.

Lighthouses are great symbols of Canadian heritage. There are more than 20 lighthouses along the Lighthouse Route in my riding of South Shore--St. Margaret's.

I am not alone in my love of this symbol of marine heritage. Canadians and people around the world are familiar with the beauty of one of our country's most famous lighthouses at Peggy's Cove, which again is situated in my own riding of South Shore--St. Margaret's, and whose pictures have graced calendars and tourism posters for many years. It is as Canadian as the sight of a grain elevator in a prairie field of golden wheat, or polar bears on a northern ice floe.

Such Canadian symbolism is enshrined in Bill S-220. It is based on the recognition of the cultural and historic significance of lighthouses as part of our maritime and national heritage. Because of their importance as community sentinels, the bill seeks to provide national protection and processes for disposal to communities for public purposes and alternate use.

Specifically, the bill would protect heritage lighthouses in three ways: by providing for their designation as a heritage lighthouse; by providing for public consultation in this designation process and before the removal, alteration, destruction, sale or other disposition of a designated lighthouse; and by providing that designated heritage lighthouses be reasonably maintained.

Such provisions, indeed the key objectives of Bill S-220, are definitely in keeping with the federal government's efforts to build a culture of heritage conservation in Canada. However, one also has to recognize that there are competing demands for resources from the Government of Canada. The objectives of this bill are not at issue. There are, however, challenges which relate to implementation and particularly in eventual funding requirements.

The bill as currently worded would see Parks Canada, under the direction of the Minister of the Environment, managing the heritage designation process. It would have to task or to establish a new organization to administer the provisions of the bill, including development of criteria for designating, maintaining or altering heritage lighthouses, or carry out research or consult with the public in response to petitions to designate, and applications to alter or demolish heritage lighthouses. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as custodian for most of Canada's lighthouses, would then be tasked with ensuring compliance with these provisions and securing the funding to support these new obligations.

The reality is that new marine technologies, such as satellite based navigation, offer today's mariner modern efficiencies that lighthouses never could, and these new systems are steadily replacing the need for lights. It is true that many lighthouses are starting to deteriorate, and after allocating resources based on program priorities, DFO does not have the financial resources to invest in assets that are or will no longer be required for program purposes.

However, the bill would create statutory maintenance obligations that could not be met through current operational budgets. The bill raises difficult issues that require choices among competing public priorities. The safety and security of mariners remain primary requirements for DFO. The application of any heritage considerations must respect the department's financial reality and its ability to make operational decisions related to current and future uses of lighthouse properties and facilities.

We must ask ourselves if it is a higher priority for taxpayers to invest in replacing the Coast Guard's aging fleet, or carrying out ocean and aquatic research, or the impacts of climate change. These are difficult challenges and we need to make reasonable, responsible choices that balance the interests of all Canadians. The passage of this bill would leave both Parks Canada and DFO at a loss to carry out the new responsibilities under the new act without considerable investment.

At present, there are as many as 750 lighthouse light structures in Canada. Bill S-220 would provide statutory protection to many of them. This would in fact provide even greater protection than most of Canada's historic landmarks have, including the parliamentary precinct where we meet today.

About 95% of the cost to preserve these lighthouses would come under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Without additional funding Fisheries and Oceans Canada would be forced to reallocate funds from existing programs and services. From search and rescue missions provided on a 24-7 basis, to development and investments in small craft harbours, to promoting the sustainable development of our oceans, to supporting a $4 billion seafood export industry, what gets cut when a country's security, environment and the economy are at stake?

Let us take a look at the scope of what Fisheries and Oceans Canada has to deal with on an ongoing basis by painting the big picture of Canada as a maritime nation.

Three of the world's oceans border on our coastline, the longest in the world at about 244,000 kilometres. Our oceans regions total almost six million square kilometres. Eight out of 10 provinces border oceans, as do the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon. The oceans provide recreational, environmental, employment, income and cultural staples to more than seven million Canadians who live in coastal communities.

Specifically, the Atlantic fishing industry employs more than 84,000 people and the Pacific fisheries provide jobs for some 14,000 people and plant workers. Canadian sport fishing injects about $7 billion each year into local economies throughout the country.

In 2006 the export of fish and seafood products to 128 countries totalled $4.1 billion as its contribution to the Canadian economy. British Columbia is our largest exporting province at $987 million, with Nova Scotia coming in second at $974 million, then Newfoundland with $798 million, followed by New Brunswick at $795 million, Quebec at $203 million, and Prince Edward Island is sixth with $194 million.

In addition, Canada boasts the largest freshwater system in the world with our two million lakes and rivers covering 7.6% of our land mass and the world's longest inland waterway at 3,700 kilometres from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Lake Superior.

To support the many and varied users of our coasts and inland waterways, the department is also responsible for maintaining and operating a national network of small craft harbours. We have to take a long, hard, very serious and reasonable look at our ability to maintain the lights the way Bill S-220 would have us do it.

Unfortunately, I am running short of time. This is a bill that is important to Canadians. It is certainly important to Senator Carney. Again, I recognize her hard work in the other place.

I would like to again recognize my former colleague, the late Michael Forrestall, for his work in bringing this issue forward starting in 2000, and also the contributions made by many of the interested groups, including the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society, that are eager to take over many of these lights.

I think that members get the picture. This is a challenge. In order to keep these magnificent heritage structures and be able to afford to do it and to be able to run daily operations at DFO, we are finding ourselves in a very unusual situation. We have to find a way to allow the public process to take place, to allow divestiture to take place, to give priority to communities, especially adjacent communities, to give priority to the lights that have a larger and greater heritage component versus ones that may be newer. We have to find a way to do this within the budget before us.

At the fisheries and oceans committee we have a good group. We are all very interested in trying to find a solution to this very difficult problem. I expect that when the bill gets to the committee, with some reasonable amendments we will be able to find that way to preserve these lights for Canadians for perpetuity.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and commend my colleague, the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, for bringing this private member's bill forward. I guess the essence of it is that the overall nature of lighthouses will continue to change significantly as they are being perceived as obvious tourist attractions in coastal communities.

Obviously, if we are looking at divestiture and getting them into the hands of community groups, there are going to have to be some supports put in place because there are obvious costs, such as maintenance, operation and associated liability.

Does my colleague envision an opportunity to work through one of the federal departments whose mandate is to promote tourism and community based tourism initiatives, such as ACOA and western diversification? Does he see a pool of money there?

As well, through the divestiture program, does he also envision that there would be an opportunity for private investment in developing these lighthouses as tourism draws and tourism infrastructure in those rural communities if a community group is not prepared to do so?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the way the divestiture process works is it would first go to non-profit groups. They would be community groups. I would hope that we find a way in this bill to allow the adjacent community to have some priority access.

If the lighthouse happened to be on Lake Ontario, there is no reason why a group out of Atlantic Canada should have priority access to it. There is probably a community that is close to it that would want to have priority access and responsibility there. If there is not a community group willing to take the lighthouse over, then absolutely, there would be the option for a for profit private group to take it over.

I do not see any big pool of money out there, quite frankly. I think that is the reality. Fisheries and Oceans has some responsibility and it has some funds that can be used. Environment Canada has some responsibility and it has some funds. I do not really see this as a western diversification or an ACOA project unless there is a private business interest that can show a profit somehow through this.

So, we have a difficult job. I am not saying this is an easy job to take this bill as it exists and make it into a workable--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine has the floor for a short question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will make an analogy. The department's solution for small craft harbours is to install fences. In other words, it is avoiding the problem. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that we are headed down the same path with the bill presented.

During his speech, the hon. member said that there was not enough money to be able to properly maintain heritage lighthouses. Now he says that a bill is needed to protect these lighthouses because there is not enough money.

The department's responsibility for heritage lighthouses or small craft harbours simply involves having more money. I do not see how a bill can solve this problem.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair point, but the reality is that there are 750 lighthouses across Canada. There are probably 300 of them that have real heritage value. The government is not going to be responsible for 300 lighthouses from coast to coast to coast and all of the costs and all the maintenance on them.

We have to find a way to divest them to communities that want them, that have been asking for them, and put them in reasonable shape before they are divested. We are not talking about an ongoing cost accrued to the federal government that will go on for perpetuity. That is not in the offing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Senator Carney and my colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's. I have eight lighthouses in my riding and another one just on the fringes. The member has talked about friends of lighthouses and groups that can take over, possibly the private sector. I would like him to talk a little bit more on whether local municipalities or first nations might have that opportunity in something like this.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's should know that the clock has run out, so he will not have a lot of time to answer. I am just about to interrupt him.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the divestiture program has a priority system and it goes federal to provincial to municipal and that, of course, could include first nations or local groups. Then it goes to not for profit groups and then it goes to for profit organizations. The availability is there for any interested group, whatever its designation, to access it.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this is such a great issue not just for coastal Newfoundland and Labrador but for coastal Canada.

We have some of the greatest heritage celebrated in the world when it comes to certainly lighthouses and a perspective of history. I would also like to point out what a lot of people overlook. In tourism brochures and all over the place across western and eastern Canada, we have a tremendous heritage in central parts of Canada as well.

As my hon. colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is certainly aware of, I think he has about eight lighthouses in his riding. Indeed, that tells us what kind of history we have with lighthouses, not only in east, west and north but also to the centre of this country.

At this point I would like to congratulate Senator Carney on her work on Bill S-220, an act to protect heritage lighthouses, introduced in December 2006. British Columbia Senator Pat Carney's bill will prevent heritage lighthouses that fall under federal jurisdiction from being altered, sold or destroyed without public consultation. Therein lies a fantastic idea, something that I do believe is long overdue.

I would like to point out and commend the work that has been done by the late Senator Forrestall who also did some tremendous work on this.

I would also like to take this time, since I am in a very complimentary mood, to share the compliments and share the hard work that has been done by all my colleagues, especially the ones from Nova Scotia. My colleague from Cape Breton—Canso has done a tremendous amount of work. My NDP colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore has done quite a bit on this file. I would be remiss if I left out my friend and colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's who has long been a champion for this. I commend him for it. Of course, my friend from Îles-de-la-Madeleine, how can I forget the east coast of Quebec where this is necessary.

In the spirit of all this congeniality, I would like to say that indeed we are supporting Bill S-220 for many reasons. I think some of it can be summarized in the hard work that people have done over the years to protect their heritage. Around Newfoundland and Labrador we have lighthouses dating back to being the focal point of coastal communities in the mid-1800s. Lighthouses go back to becoming the focal point of communities for sealers and fishermen all over the eastern parts of the country.

Of course, being from Newfoundland and Labrador, the oldest colony in North America, lighthouses have indeed been an intrinsic part of our past and will continue to be.

“Going Towards the Lights in Atlantic Canada” is a document by the Canadian Register of Historic Places written by Darin MacKinnon. He is the registrar of heritage places with Prince Edward Island and he makes some very good observations. First of all, he says, “Lighthouses stand out”. He says, “Those lonely sentinels are iconic”.

He goes on to say and this is my favourite quote from him and it is very true. He says, “They are beacons from our past”. Indeed they are beacons from our past and something that we should preserve for the future, not only for our children but also for generations to come, many years, 100, 200 years. We should take notice of this.

In 2004 Parks Canada with provincial and territorial partners launched the Canadian Register of Historic Places. It is a searchable online source of information for anybody who is interested in finding out in their nearest vicinity if indeed they do have lighthouses and where they can go and see them.

For those who have an interest in lighthouses and the deep history associated with them, I do not suppose any of my Saskatchewan colleagues would find too much online, but nonetheless we get the idea, whether it be from the Great Lakes to the Arctic.

There are light stations to dwell on. Two recent examples from CRHP listings from Newfoundland and Labrador highlight other buildings associated with lighthouses. I would be remiss if I did not mention one in my own riding which is the Long Point Light Station at Crow Head. It was recently designated in December 2006.

I would also like to point out something that my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso mentioned when he talked about the available funds. I do think and I would compel the government and governments to come, no matter what stripe or colour, to look into a designated fund for our lighthouses as historical pieces.

I understand the limitations. I certainly understand the challenges in doing this for in excess of 500 lighthouses, but as my honourable colleague from the Conservatives pointed out, there has to be something done to preserve the lighthouses that serve to be our beacons from the past.

Also, I will talk about Cape Bonavista, another one that goes way back to the early 1800s and how it has evolved over the years. Through time, it has become a major beacon on the northeast coast. It is not of federal jurisdiction; it is provincial. However, when it comes to lighthouses and protecting our culture, when did jurisdiction ever matter? This is an important issue. It is one that is necessary for each and every colleague in the House.

In the process for Bill S-220, both the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada asserted that there were 750 lighthouses in Canada which would require funding pursuant to the provisions of the bill. The figure has presumably been applied to the cost analysis conducted by these departments. However, on December 7, 2006, during the hearing of Bill S-220 by the Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, they pointed out that only 3% of our lighthouses across the nation had genuine heritage protection and only 12% even had partial protection. That exists for 583 of these lighthouses. These are statistics that we should keep in mind as we vote on the bill. I hope we get the support of all our colleagues in the House.

Why is this needed to protect heritage lighthouses? It is for the Government of Canada to examine, recognize, protect and maintain a highly significant group of heritage structures, something with which I cannot see anybody in this legislature or other legislatures across the country disagreeing.

Today, for an example, we also have a great bit of money and attention given to railway stations across the country for their heritage impact. We actually have more lighthouses designated than we do railway stations. Decades ago, the government decided to have a policy where it would recognize and support railway stations for heritage purposes. Today 166 heritage railway stations have been designated by the federal government.

Let us contrast and compare. Lighthouses are beacons of the past and we could say the same for trains and railway stations. Something along that magnitude is indeed required in this situation.

Other examples that we could use are Cape Sable lighthouse, Nova Scotia, Sambro Island gas house in Nova Scotia and Estevan Point in British Columbia. It is a fantastic place for many people along the coastline to see, to get a glimpse of the history and culture of which they do celebrate. I congratulate each and every participant who is involved in that.

Bill S-220 is needed too. There are three major points I will bring out, which is the main reason why we are here today to support the bill. First is to give the public a voice in protecting heritage lighthouses. Second is to provide a systematic and legally binding mechanism for the recognition and protection of lighthouses that are presently owned and operated by the federal government. That is why we are here today. Third, we should provide an opportunity for public consultation before authorization is given for the removal, alteration, destruction, sale, transfer or other disposition of a heritage lighthouse. That is a very necessary component.

Bill S-220 is a very important first step for this incentive. The funding needs to be addressed. In fact, I suggest that maybe the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans could probably look at something along this magnitude if it has not done it before. Perhaps my hon. colleague can point it out. He has more experience on the committee than I do.

I do appreciate the comments in here today. I appreciate Senator Carney and the work that she has done. Indeed, this is something that we can easily support, and we do it with a great amount of enthusiasm.

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

Mr. Speaker, after that fine speech I would not want to stop us all from getting along. I can see why in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans we work in a collegial manner for the betterment of those we defend. It is in that spirit that I will speak today on the matter of heritage lighthouses.

However, I will go against what I have heard so far because the Bloc does not intend to support Bill S-220, for various reasons I will explain in the next few minutes.

As I was saying when I asked the question earlier, it is hard to believe that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, finally, in all its wisdom, has come up with an alternative to neglecting the lighthouses and the difficult situation in these areas.

The department thought that a bill like this would allow it to randomly, perhaps after some form of public consultation, determine that a lighthouse at a certain location would be protected. If this desire to cooperate on this does not manifest itself, the lighthouse in question might simply disappear and be dismantled, for lack of funding, as I heard the Conservative member say loud and clear.

I am well aware that we are currently in a situation where small craft harbours are not being maintained as they should be. You know as well as I do how much money is needed not to refurbish, but to renew all the wharves that are deemed essential. If we properly assessed the situation, we would see that there are wharves deemed essential by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and there are other general wharves. The number of general wharves largely outweighs the number of essential ones.

The latest figures show that $470 million is needed to restore the wharves. I get the feeling that the real amount is much higher, since that figure dates back to 2005 or 2006, if I am not mistaken. We are now in 2007. You know as well as I do that with every storm, or every time there are a few more waves, the wharf deteriorates just a little more. As soon as a wharf starts deteriorating, it does not take long before it is run down. Accordingly, the amount of money that should be recommitted to this file increases exponentially.

The small craft harbours file is in a serious situation, and this is a federal responsibility.

The solution every time, for want of money, is to turn to volunteers who work under the harbour authorities. The other solution is to simply put up a fence around these wharves. It is completely irresponsible for any government to do so.

There is a risk associated with the bill tabled today. We are told right up front, and quite openly, that there will be no more money in the budget for heritage lighthouses. However, a committee will be set up to undertake public consultations, but with no guarantees as to the outcome. The minister will reserve the right to decide whether or not a certain lighthouse, considered significant and a heritage property by one community, will be designated, whereas another may not necessarily be given that status. We are promised that there will be money later, as if by magic, to maintain these heritage lighthouses.

I am prepared to have some faith, but not to that point. I do not wish to be blind.

I wish to be responsible and rigorous. Which means that a bill will not solve the problem of the responsibilities of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to heritage lighthouses. It is not that type of bill.

What is really needed is more money for facilities such as lighthouses, small craft harbours and wharves. I have the impression, given that the past can be an indication of what the future holds, that the purpose of the bill is to mask the sad reality and possibly provide a way out for the department. Furthermore, this is all being done under the pretext of designating cultural assets. In this regard, I would have liked to have seen this work carried out in cooperation with the Government of Quebec. The fact that the government is a majority or a minority is not at issue. The Government of Quebec should be consulted where properties—namely lighthouses—could become cultural assets. What will happen to these lighthouses after that?

As soon as a community develops an interest in a lighthouse, does that community have to make a huge financial effort to find the money to refurbish the lighthouse in question? In the end, even though there is a bill, there is no money behind it. As a result, volunteers who want to protect a cultural asset and who are interested in doing something with a heritage lighthouse will be asked to put in a superhuman effort.

In the end, it will turn out that for want of money and real political will, these people will be left to their own devices. This situation is a federal responsibility. This is not about lighthouses in other jurisdictions. These lighthouses belong to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. In terms of protecting jurisdiction, the responsibility falls entirely under Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Also worth emphasizing is the fact that eventually, we may find ourselves with a lighthouse that has to be decontaminated. It might just be the lighthouse, but it could also be the buildings nearby.

We know that mercury was used a lot. Extensive use of mercury has led to the contamination of some lighthouse sites. What will be done about that? Does this mean that volunteers and the community will be asked to do even more to ensure that the so-called federal responsibility to maintain a so-called heritage site is honoured? The problem is being offloaded to volunteers and coastal communities. Because of their attachment to the heritage lighthouse, they will do anything to protect it. Site decontamination could cost $600,000, $1 million, $1.5 million or even $2 million. That is the kind of situation that could arise.

That is why I do not think that the bill before us today meets our expectations. It is not completely contrary to our expectations, but we have to be rigorous and responsible. I do not claim to have the solution, but I think that unfortunately, with respect to the heritage lighthouse issue, given how the department is managing the other file in its portfolio, small craft harbours, we can hardly trust it with respect to its responsibility to adequately maintain the facilities it owns. That is why we will vote against this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from South Shore--St. Margaret's, as well as the hon. Senator Pat Carney and the late hon. Senator Forrestall for the tremendous work they did on this file for many years in trying to bring this issue to the forefront.

Bill S-220 is a compilation of some bills that have been introduced not only in the House but in the Senate. My colleague from South Shore--St. Margaret's has a private member's bill on this, as do I. Senator Carney did yeomen's work trying to get the bill through the Senate and then to the House for this discussion.

I can appreciate some of the concerns my colleague from the Bloc Québécois had but I can assure him that the bill would do quite a lot of good, not only for Quebec heritage but for the rest of the country as well.

Are there a couple of concerns? Every bill has some concerns. As the chair of our committee so rightly said, if we can get this bill to committee we can discuss those concerns in a rather pragmatic fashion and we can bring in people from around the country. We can bring in departmental officials, people from the provinces and, quite possibly, those heritage groups that have insisted on taking over responsibility of these lighthouses. We think that in many ways this is a win-win situation.

The federal government does what it wishes to do through automation now. However, with the technology we have these days many lighthouses have become redundant but their structures have historical significance, not just to us in Atlantic Canada but to people right across the country. Every time one of those lighthouses comes down, either through an act of God or through deliberate attempts by us to remove it, we lose a piece of our history.

I have had the benefit of living on both coasts of this great country and I have seen many lighthouses. It is an absolute joy to picnic near a lighthouse and imagine what it was like 100 or 200 years ago when seafarers plied their trade and used the beacon of hope to direct them into a safe harbour.

We have many folklores and stories about lighthouses. Although we may be romanticizing this particular debate, we believe this issue is of significant importance. Just like other historical aspects within Canada, like grain elevators on the prairies or train stations and other things, lighthouses played a significant role for our ancestors.

We are not asking that every lighthouse be protected. We are not asking that every one of them be designated under a heritage aspect. That would be fiscally unwise and fiscally irresponsible. We are asking that those lighthouses of significant historical importance to the country be protected. People in the Dominion Institute and many others can identify those particular lighthouses.

We know that people within the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, the Coast Guard, et cetera, have expertise on this subject. They could identify the lighthouses that deserve special protection of this nature. We believe that in the end it would actually be fiscally responsible. We also know that many of these lighthouses suffer from environmental contamination and they need to be cleaned up.

As my colleague, who has the honour of living in South Shore--St. Margaret's on the lighthouse route, it is incredible to see the number of tourists from around the world who go to areas like Peggy's Cove, Cape Forchu, Cape Spear in Newfoundland and Langara Island on the west coast and have their pictures taken near what we sometimes call the candy pole or the barbershop pole. Many of the them are in salt and pepper designs as well. These lighthouses are absolutely fantastic. It is absolutely fantastic to explore them, to witness them and to read about their history. When we speak to volunteer groups in the communities that are attached to those lighthouses, we hear their desire to keep those lighthouses.

The love for these lighthouses and their historical significance is something we as politicians should understand more fully. We should also try to assist the volunteer groups in trying to maintain these lighthouses in perpetuity.

The goal of the bill is to eventually get those lighthouses into a state where they can be transferred over to non-profit groups, hopefully within the communities of interest, so that the integrity and the history of these lighthouses can be preserved for many generations to come.

Every time we lose a particular piece of heritage, it is a loss for all of us. I know my hon. colleague from Halifax is very supportive of the bill. I would like to tell my colleague, who is also the chair of our committee, that we in the federal New Democratic Party, as well as the provincial parties across the country, support this initiative.

On some of the concerns that he has outlined that we need to discuss, I am sure we can discuss them in a very pragmatic fashion within our committee.

I would remind the House, as has been mentioned before, that although the members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans do not necessarily agree on everything, the reality is that I have been on that committee since 1997 and we have done many reports on all aspects of the fishery, and I believe we can work in a collegial fashion to move this issue fairly quickly.

This would really honour a true friend of Nova Scotia and a long time member, not just of the service, but also of the Senate, of the House and of Canada, the late Senator Mike Forrestall. He was a very decent human being. He had a love for this particular issue. We believe that it would be very fitting, in his honour and in his memory, to move a particular issue of this nature forward.

We believe this would be fiscally responsible. We believe that eventually the finances will be in upcoming budgets for this particular initiative. We believe the House of Commons can, once and for all, actually put its stamp on a heritage lighthouse act so that groups, like the Dominion Institute and groups throughout the provinces, the territories and the country, will be able to honestly say that we worked in a manner befitting this Parliament to move this issue forward in, hopefully, a unanimous way one day.

I am sure the Bloc member's concerns can be addressed in our committee as well. I look forward to that day.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the sense of wonder and reverence we feel as we learn about the past human activities that laid the foundation of our country stimulate a profound desire to ensure the preservation of historic places, artifacts and structures. It encourages us to want to share these experiences with our families and ensure that future generations can also benefit from them. It motivates us to ensure the protection of natural areas and commemoration of historic places, which is a national priority.

These areas and sites symbolize our national identity. They characterize the way we see ourselves and how others see us as a nation. Through our efforts, we demonstrate to the world a thoughtful, caring attitude toward the national and international treasures of nature and culture so richly bestowed upon Canadians.

Such is the spirit of Bill C-220. It reflects what many Canadians feel when they walk toward a shore and look at a lighthouse. Lighthouses are part of Canada's history. They have ensured safe navigation and docking for tens of thousands of fishermen, ship crew members and passengers and immigrants. The inspiration and knowledge we derive from these special heritage places more than justify our efforts to protect and commemorate them.

Canada has a world-class system of heritage areas and programs designed for the preservation of the most outstanding of our country's treasures. This includes national historic sites, national parks, heritage rivers, historic canals, marine conservation areas, heritage railway stations and heritage buildings, including lighthouses. These special places provide Canadians with outstanding opportunities to learn about and personally experience their rich heritage. These sites are an integral part of what we are, not simply what we were.

The historic sites component of Parks Canada is responsible for Canada's program of historical commemoration which recognizes nationally significant places, persons and events.

The Minister of the Environment designates national historic sites on the advice of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and federal heritage buildings evaluated by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office and an interdepartmental advisory committee.

More than 100 lighthouses have been designated as national historic sites or as classified or recognized federal heritage buildings. There are other types of heritage buildings, such as old post offices and armouries. I will give a few examples of these precious landmarks of Canadian history.

The first lighthouse on the St. Lawrence and the third oldest in Canada today was erected on Île Verte facing the Saguenay Fjord. The Île Verte light was first lit in 1809. It remained the sole light on the mighty St. Lawrence for the next 21 years.

Today, the private owner keeper's house has been transformed into a bed and breakfast. Every year thousands of visitors from across Canada, North America and Europe have the opportunity to spend some time at this legendary site and learn more about Canada's history.

Gibraltar Point erected in 1808 is the oldest existing lighthouse on the Canadian Great Lakes. The tower, built of limestone, originally stood some 67 feet in height. A 15 foot extension was added in 1832. The lighthouse is no longer in service but he city of Toronto has preserved it as a historic site.

Located on Lake Huron, Point Clark Lighthouse was built between 1855 and 1859. It commemorates the vital role of lighthouses in navigation on the Great Lakes. The 87 foot limestone tower, topped by a 12 sided lantern framed in cast iron, is typical of the six Imperial towers built in the region, a lighthouse style rarely seen elsewhere in Canada. Point Clark Lighthouse is one of Canada's national historic sites. The township of Huron has an agreement with Parks Canada to operate the light keeper's house as a local museum.

Fisgard Lighthouse is a circular brick tower, 56 feet high with an attached dwelling. It was built in 1860 at the entrance to Esquimalt Harbour. Along with Race Rock light, it inaugurated the fixed navigation aids on the Pacific coast of Canada. Even though the lighthouse is still in service, Parks Canada maintains it as a historic site. The former keeper's house now contains exhibits and a video station.

There is no doubt that lighthouses are important to Canadians. They stand against winds, tides and storms. They are a symbol of strength, resilience and Canadian courage and resourcefulness.

But they are not the only type of heritage buildings worth protecting. National historic sites represent thousands of years of human history and hundreds of years of nation building. They have been representative of the diversity of Canada's historic heritage.

National historic sites are located all across Canada. Each national historic site tells its own unique story, part of the greater story of Canada, contributing a sense of time, identity and place to our understanding of Canada as a whole. Each national historic site is part of a system that spans the country, telling the story of Canada's development as a nation.

In her November 2003 report, “Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Federal Government”, the Auditor General questioned the protection of many examples of the same building type, citing lighthouses specifically. In a follow-up report released in February 2007, the Auditor General reiterated some important recommendations, including the need to strengthen the conservation regime for built heritage.

Under the Parks Canada Agency Act, Parks Canada has the responsibility for built heritage programs and historic places in Canada. The agency's objectives include ensuring the commemorative integrity of national historic sites and respect for and conservation of the heritage character of federal heritage buildings.

The processes adopted by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board for the selection of national historic sites and by the Federal Heritage Building Review Office for the evaluation of federal heritage sites are based on recognized selection criteria and in-depth research. They are intended to protect the most outstanding examples of Canadian cultural heritage in all categories of built heritage, not one single type.

In conclusion, protecting our built heritage is about making choices. Which historic places will we choose to protect? What means will we put into play? How will these activities be funded?

As we heard earlier today, not all old buildings can be preserved. The choices are never easy to make, but they have become critically important to the development of protection strategies. We need to make judicious choices in designating heritage buildings and to have appropriate means to ensure their conservation on behalf of all Canadians now and in the future.

We want to examine Bill S-220 carefully. I commend Senator Carney in the other place and the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's for bringing the matter forward in the House to stimulate this important debate. I encourage all members to engage in a fulsome debate on this issue.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and Bill S-220 is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence. When it returns for debate in the House, there will be two minutes left for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

The House resumed from March 27 consideration of the motion that Bill S-220, An Act to protect heritage lighthouses, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to join in this debate and speak on behalf of the motion. I commend my colleague for bringing this forward to the House.

Certainly, being from a riding that is essentially a coastal riding, there are a great number of coastal communities throughout Cape Breton—Canso. When we look at lighthouses, they have played such an integral part of what it is that we are as a community. They are not past their function but certainly in some ports of small coastal communities they become much more than that.

I know the technology is past with what is available to mariners, fishermen and shippers now. Many lighthouses have fallen into the realm of redundancy, but still, when we look down a coastline and see the picturesque beauty of a lighthouse standing on a point, certainly it is something that has a great deal of appeal, something in which residents of that particular community take a great deal of pride.

As well, when we have visitors who come to the coastal communities for that experience, certainly lighthouse tours are an essential part and a very important part of attracting people to rural communities. In rural communities tourism is an essential industry that is very important.

In essence, when people tour coastal communities, and I look at my own riding, they go around the Cabot Trail, they drive down through Guysborough to the little community of Canso, and they go around Isle Madame. The scenery is incredible. One can drive up along the west coast of Cape Breton through Grand Étang and Chéticamp. If one gets there on a windy day with the surf crashing against the rocks, there is nothing more spectacular.

People want to do more than just look at the scenery. They want to get out and want an experience. I think that is one thing that we have learned throughout my riding. People want to get out of the car to hike the trails, listen to the music, experience the culture, and meet the people. They want that interactive experience.

Many people really see lighthouses as a key draw, something that people want to get in, walk up, go through the light, read the history of the place, and read some of the marine stories that took place in the locale. Interpretive areas throughout these lighthouses are becoming very popular and essential parts of these coastal communities.

Currently in Canada we have about 583 lighthouses, 3% of which are fully protected under current heritage laws. As I understand the bill before us, the legislation would designate federally owned heritage light stations as heritage sites and ensure that they are maintained according to conservation standards. It would also require that communities near the lighthouses are consulted prior to changing, selling, transferring or demolishing any of the designated stations.

The legislation has been brought forward driven by a number of different senators in the past, but as the bill came forward before the intent was that the legislation would result in the buildings receiving similar protection to train stations which are protected under the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act. We know that under that act rail companies must seek approval from the environment minister, consult extensively before there is any kind of a transfer, sale or any kind of change or alteration to the ownership of that particular train station.

I will refer back to my riding. I have a couple of spectacular lighthouses in my riding. People are very familiar with the national historic property at Louisbourg and the fortress there. One of the best views of Louisbourg can be seen by hiking out to Lighthouse Point just out past Havenside in Louisbourg. It is an incredible lighthouse. From there it is sort of focal point to launch from.

A community group is trying to develop a whole trail system from that lighthouse, with the lighthouse being the focal point and then moving on from there. The plan they are putting forward involves a number of different styles of trails that would accommodate those in wheelchairs. The oceanside experience and the marine experience would not be limited to able-bodied people. Those who need assistance would also be able to enjoy it.

DFO just finished an extensive restoration of Mabou Harbour. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has done a fabulous job of redeveloping Margaree Harbour. However, work still needs to be done on the lighthouse but a community group has taken on the challenge. It is looking to secure some funds and develop some partnerships with people within the community and some of the funding agencies to further support the development of this lighthouse project.

There is a great deal of interest within rural communities and coastal communities to ensure these lighthouses are sustained.

Many of these structures stand in some harsh elements, such as coastal winds, storm surges and salt spray, and these elements have a great deal of impact on these structures. In many communities, some of these fabulous old structures and these heritage structures have not been maintained and are really starting to show their wear. If we do not do something soon, these communities will lose an important aspect of their history, which would be criminal.

We see this bill as giving us an opportunity to support these rural communities. We are supportive of this bill because it would certainly expand tourism opportunities within rural communities and we are certainly supportive of that.

What concerns those of us on this side of the House, as well a couple of members on the other side of the House with whom I have spoken, is that we are under the gun here with respect to time. We do not know what is ahead of us as far as time is concerned. A great deal of talk has been going on about continuing on with the parliamentary session and, hopefully, that will happen. I know the government is very keen on getting out of here because it has not had a good couple of weeks. A couple of the members have their cars warming up in the parking lot now wanting to get out of Ottawa. However, there is still a great deal to do here and a large number of issues that Canadians want dealt with, and this is just such an issue.

This issue has been brought forward on a number of different occasions. The bill was initiated in the Canadian Senate and is co-sponsored by my colleague from South Shore. It has a legitimate opportunity of being passed this time should this Parliament live out its natural life. People on this side of the House are looking forward to staying and addressing these important issues and certainly this lighthouse issue.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are an old rock and roller and you may have thought that this legislation was to support Lighthouse, that great Canadian band with Bob McBride who sang the song One Fine Morning, but this is about coastal lighthouses. This is a great piece of legislation. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to support it with a vote and we look forward to doing that when it comes forward in the House.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill that aims to protect our heritage lighthouses. I also want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore who has spoken on this issue and is in support of it, and the member for Halifax who understands the value of maintaining our heritage.

I listened to the previous member speak and although he is from the east coast and talked about the beautiful scenery and the crashing waves on the coast of the Atlantic provinces, I want to talk about where I come from on the west coast of British Columbia where we also have some lighthouses that are no longer in use because of advancing technology and other ways of protecting and monitoring our coastlines. It is also with some pride that I talk about the beauty of my area and the crashing waves on the west coast.

When I look at the “whereases” in this bill, the first whereas says:

WHEREAS lighthouses have long graced Canada’s rugged coastlines and majestic shores, providing and symbolizing direction, hope and safe harbour to generations of mariners;

To me that conjures up so many images of seafarers of long ago and currently who ply our coasts in trade and just thinking of how the lighthouses were a beacon of hope in a dark and stormy night or when they see land and knew where they were. So our lighthouses have long been part of our coastal history.

In protecting these monuments to our past, by designating them a heritage site and protecting, maintaining and ensuring they are there for future generations, we can continue to have these images in our mind and remember and reflect on what it was like in days gone by when we relied on lighthouses to keep us safe and to get our bearings.

The bill explains in great detail how a lighthouse would be designated and what would happen with it. It also sets out some parameters under which it should be restored. It is important to protect the lighthouses that we deem to be heritage property but we also need to ensure they have adequate funding. For many of our heritage buildings and heritage properties, we see volunteer groups working very hard and raising funds to keep these projects going to ensure they are there for tourism and economic diversity in our small communities but we do not see a lot of funding from the government.

If the bill were to pass, I would certainly hope that the government would see fit to ensure there is adequate funding because these lighthouses, in many cases, are in very remote areas, especially the ones in my riding of Vancouver Island North. We have the Nootka light, the Cape Scott and the Cape Mudge which are located in places that are only accessible by boat. If they were deemed heritage sites, considerable funding would be necessary to maintain and keep them in a safe operating condition for tourists and other economic generation.

I want to talk briefly about the west coast where my parents lived for quite a number of years. In the winter they were the caretakers of a fish camp out on Nootka Island, which was basically the point of contact for Europeans when they came to Canada because it has a lighthouse that is located at the remote end of Nootka Island. When one looks out across the ocean and thinks of the vastness of it, one knows that the next stop across that ocean is Japan. The lighthouse is on the very edge of the Pacific.

My parents lived there for a number of years during the winter months and got to know the lighthouse keepers at Nootka light. Those people were always on call. They were always there for mariners, sailors, ordinary fishermen, commercial fishermen and anybody who happened to be out on the waters on the west coast, making their living or enjoying their lives. That lighthouse has changed hands. There are other people there now.

The people who were there at that time spoke so often of the need to have staffed lighthouses on our coast, because sometimes the technology just does not work, especially in that remote a location. Satellites may work, but quite often cellphones do not work in those areas. Satellites phones do not always work. There is a need to make sure there is safety on our coast and that some of these lighthouses remain staffed and are there for protection. If it takes a few hours to get from point A to point B by boat and people are in a crisis out on the wild Pacific Ocean, they would not have to wonder if help is going to arrive in six hours or in two hours. I think it is important to make sure we keep some of our lighthouses staffed.

I also want to touch on something that my colleagues from Nanaimo—Cowichan and Victoria have talked to me about. They also have lighthouses in their ridings. There are many volunteer groups and a huge broad base of support for heritage lighthouses. These people have watched the bill through all its manifestations over the years. It has been introduced five or six times in the House and has been spoken about, but it never goes anywhere.

We know that there are many people in our communities who would be ready to start working on the preservation of heritage lighthouses if this bill were to pass. I want to let everyone know that there is broad community support for the bill. I hope we can actually get something done with it this time, as the member opposite said in his remarks.

I agree that preservation of heritage lighthouses on our east and west coasts can be an economic draw for some of our smaller communities such as Port Hardy. We have Cape Scott, which is the beginning of the north coast trail that is being built, and we are seeking more funding for that trail. As I said when I spoke in the House last week, the trail draws thousands of people a year. We know about the west coast trail and how popular it is with wilderness hikers from around the world. The trail I am speaking of would not be connected to that west coast trail, but it would be an extension. With a heritage lighthouse on it, at some point it may draw even more people.

These are things that we can do in Canada to preserve our heritage. We can showcase ourselves in a way that no other country can. We can make sure that we diversify our economies by increasing our tourism base in hiking trails and walking trails and by exploration in areas that we may not have thought of as popular tourist destinations in the past.

Again I want to thank the member who introduced the motion, and I also thank Senator Pat Carney, who did so much work on the bill in the Senate. I thank her for her work in pushing it forward and making sure that it got to the House. I support this bill.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill S-220.

Let me begin by thanking the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's for sponsoring the bill in the House and also the hon. Senator Pat Carney from British Columbia who brought the bill forward to this chamber. She carries on the work of the late Senator Forrestall of Nova Scotia. He cared deeply about Canada's lighthouses as an indelible symbol of our shared heritage, as do I and many members in this place.

Bill S-220 seeks to protect and preserve heritage lighthouses by requiring their maintenance as heritage monuments. Currently there are about 750 “lighthouse like” aids to navigation in Canada and the bill would provide statutory protection to many of them.

As a proud Canadian from the west coast and a strong supporter of communities along the Pacific coast, lighthouses have a special place in the hearts of many British Columbians. For many communities, lighthouses stand as an important part of their cultural identity.

Like the railway tracks that stretch across our landscape, like the grain elevators that rise from the Prairies, lighthouses are a part of the fabric that is Canada. They are woven into our songs, poetry, stories and even our art. We will even find them from time to time on our postage stamps. Not only that, they are a prime tourist destination for thousands of visitors from across Canada and around the world.

Lighthouses have helped to shape the history of my province. Like many, I recognize and appreciate the role they have played in opening the west coast to development, trade and commerce. In fact, nine west coast lighthouses are already designated as federal heritage buildings. Let me speak for a moment or two about just a few of those.

To begin where it all began, the white tower and red brick lightkeeper's house of Fisgard have stood faithfully at the mouth of Esquimalt Harbour since about 1860. Fisgard is Canada's first manned light station. For almost a century and a half, this lighthouse, and the one at nearby Race Rocks, has shone the way through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and on to Victoria Harbour for countless mariners.

Today it is still a welcome guide for many sailing these waters, including those heading to the Royal Roads anchorage and Esquimalt naval base. The lighthouse and the Fort Rodd Hill artillery base are designated national historic sites and successful destinations for tourists and history buffs alike.

Point Atkinson lighthouse in west Vancouver may well be the Pacific coast's most famous. The original structure was built around 1874. In about 1912 a hexagonal concrete tower was built to take its place. This lighthouse, with its powerful beam and strategic location at the outer approach to Burrard Inlet, has provided safe passage to many a mariner sailing into Vancouver. For decades, it has helped protect the city's bustling international shipping fleets.

Vancouverites care deeply about this lighthouse and they care about the surrounding 75 hectare park, which, incidentally, contains the last stand of old growth forest in the Lower Mainland, mostly Douglas fir. This dense forest provided a fittingly dark background for the lighthouses' bright beams, and I and many others are pleased that they are both still there today.

Estevan Point is another example of B.C.'s historic lighthouses. It was built in 1909 and is said to be one of only two Canadian lighthouses to be attacked by hostile forces. Historians today debate whether the shells that missed their mark and drew no casualties in 1942 were, indeed, from an enemy submarine off Vancouver Island. The other theory is that the attack was staged by an allied ship to provide political cover for the Canadian government's controversial move to implement conscription, but we will not get into that debate today.

Either way, the Estevan lighthouse stands as a beacon of our past and a true piece of Canadiana. It is one of the most distinctive lighthouses in all of British Columbia. The spectacular flying butresses of the Estevan light station soar almost 46 metres into the sky. It is one of only six remaining lighthouses in Canada to feature this unique architectural style.

It is clear that lighthouses shine brightly in the history of my home province and other parts of Canada. Before the advent of the automobile, our waterways were the highways of choice for travellers and their cargo and lighthouses were their road signs. The value of lighthouses as icons of the past is undeniable.

However, the 21st century has been marked by rapid technological change and with that change the operational role of lighthouses is diminishing. New marine safety and navigational technology are replacing the need for lighthouses in guiding marine traffic. As a result, many have become operationally redundant and many have fallen into poor condition.

Should we care? I feel strongly that we should. Lighthouses often define the very culture and spirit of the Canadian community marking its rightful place in the history of our country.

However, just as technology has changed with time, so too have communities across Canada. To succeed, communities are seeking new opportunities and adapting themselves to the economic, cultural and social realities of today. Similarly, we can be innovative in defining new roles for lighthouses within these communities.

For some time now, DFO has worked with other federal departments and levels of government, as well as community groups and non-profit organizations, to transfer surplus lighthouses for alternate public uses. In fact, communities can purchase surplus lighthouses, for continued public use, for the nominal fee of $1.00.

Would we like to maintain every lighthouse of historical significance in the country? We certainly would. However, this is beyond DFO's mandate and resources. Our job is to provide Canadians with basically three things: one, sustainable fisheries and aquaculture; two, healthy and productive aquatic ecosystems; and, three, safe and accessible waterways. These duties cannot be undermined because they, too, are important to Canadians.

Canada exports about $4.1 billion in fish and seafood a year. Every year, more than 100,000 transport vessels make their way through our waters. They carry 360 million tonnes of goods, with an import or export value of $85 billion.

That is why our government, on behalf of Canadians, invests in things like fisheries science and management, enforcement and habitat protection, oceans stewardship, renewing the Coast Guard fleet and modernizing aids to navigation. We work with the local community in keeping Canada's small craft harbours safe and functional. World events have expanded DFO's role, through the Canadian Coast Guard, in maintaining maritime security along our shores, in conjunction with other agencies.

I must agree with my colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's, who is championing this bill in the House. While the goals of the bill are entirely supportable, its methods need some refining. In fact, just finding a clear definition of “lighthouse” is itself challenging. As I mentioned, there are 750 structures that the public perceives as lighthouses, which could come under our heritage protection if the bill passes as it stands now.

Under Bill S-220, Parks Canada would be responsible for designating heritage status and DFO, as the primary custodian of lighthouses, would have to fund almost all the costs associated with preserving them. Clearly, a sober and pragmatic approach is required.

Under our current operating budget, DFO would be forced to make some tough choices to deliver our newly assumed heritage responsibility. However, at what cost? The resources to maintain lighthouses have to come from somewhere.

What would we take back from a fishing industry that can ill afford further pressures? Would we choose to impact the renewal of our fisheries, the management of our oceans or the protection of our aquatic ecosystems? Could we continue improving our small craft harbour infrastructure, which Canadian fishers dearly need to earn a living? Perhaps most important, what about the safety of persons and property travelling on our waters?

These are choices that none of us at DFO would wish to make and that Canadians should not have to face, and I hope we will not have to.

Historian Desmond Morton once wrote:

Canadians, like their historians, have spent too much time remembering conflicts, crises, and failures. They forgot the great, quiet continuity of life in a vast and generous land. A cautious people learns from its past; a sensible people can face its future. Canadians, on the whole, are both.

I think that speaks volumes to the debate we are having today.

I believe in honouring our maritime heritage and I believe this is a shared responsibility, including but not limited to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

We fully support the principles of Bill S-220. We are willing to work with other levels of government and community members, who care about preserving these vital links to our past and can make the most of these opportunities to honour our maritime heritage.

Canadians do have a strong attachment to lighthouses. However, we also need to move from an emotionally based argument to a practical one. Simply put, true heritage lighthouses need to be protected and preserved for the education and enjoyment of current and future generations. They need to have new life breathed into them. They need to be rejuvenated so they can play a new role in community life.

Lighthouses are a symbol of survival and hope in hundreds of Canadian communities. In fact, with the exception of only two, every province in Canada has lighthouses. As Canadians, we all have a responsibility to protect these important symbols because it is through our history that we come to know ourselves as a people. I believe we all have a role to play in that regard.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to rise and wrap up speaking on Bill S-220. In doing so, I thank my colleagues from all parties present for their work and input on this private member's bill. I thank them for their support of the intent of the bill.

As well, I recognize the support and the input from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment. I would be remiss if I did not recognize Senator Carney and her sponsorship of the bill in the Senate. In mentioning Senator Carney, I would be remiss if I did not mention the late Senator Michael Forrestall who sponsored the bill not once but five times in the Senate. I am sure he is looking down today thinking that finally this has some opportunity and some chance of coming to fruition.

As well, there is a number of other individuals to thank such as Barry MacDonald of the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society for his input into the bill. Hopefully, after second reading, the bill will proceed to committee. There are some amendments that we are looking to bring at committee, and I am sure there will be some discussion on those. It is important, for the first opportunity after many years and many people working on the bill, that we can see some light at the end of the tunnel.

I will point out one of the amendments that we will consider in committee. I will not belabour this tonight because I think most of the members understand it. However, so people who are lighthouse supporters and who are listening to this will understand, I will mention it briefly.

As the bill is currently drafted, it takes an inconsistent approach to public notices and public meetings. It would require a public meeting for decisions related to conservation work, despite provisions in the bill that already require any alterations to protect heritage value to be of a high standard. At the same time, the bill does not require a public meeting if a lighthouse were to be demolished or torn down. This was simply an oversight. This needs correction.

It is our intent to bring substantive, reasonable and sensible amendments like this to committee. We are hopeful that there will support from all the members, who have supported the bill to this point, at committee to make these types of changes.

The other aspect that must be understood is the overall cost has to be reasonable and within DFO's budget. As it now stands, we are expecting that DFO will have to find more money in its budget than it intended for some type of reasonable and orderly divestiture process.

Both the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment are all right with that. They know they will have to find some more dollars. For the first time, I think we have a golden opportunity to preserve lighthouses and lighthouse infrastructure in coastal Canada in perpetuity, whether that is east, west, north, south or the inland waterways. That is the point of this bill.

One more time, I would like to recognize the outstanding work of the late Mike Forrestall on this bill, and thank him for that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 13, 2007, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

The House resumed from June 11 consideration of the motion that Bill S-220, An Act to protect heritage lighthouses, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill S-220 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #205

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)