Monsieur Asselin.
Evidence of meeting #62 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lighthouses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #62 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lighthouses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Could somebody from Parks Canada or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans please tell me what the consequences of this Senate bill would be? Has there been discussion with the provinces regarding the transfer of heritage sites? Have you had meetings with provincial governments, including the Quebec government? Is there any political will to do so?
After all, the provincial governments might be the ones that are most interested in buying the lighthouses and developing them as historic tourist attractions. They could turn out to be valuable partners who would contribute to the survival of this heritage.
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
If I have understood your question, you are referring to the divestiture process for lighthouses, which I have already explained. We offer lighthouses that are no longer of use to us to federal departments, and to provincial and municipal governments. So yes, the provinces may well want to acquire a lighthouse we no longer need.
Does that answer your question?
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC
In any case, if it has not been done, either Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Parks Canada or even Heritage Canada should initiate a process and get in touch with the provincial governments once the inventory is done and they have decided which installations they want to keep and which ones they want to tear down. I presume that stakeholders will be consulted in some way or other.
As you mentioned, you should perhaps consult the provincial governments, among others, when you decide which lighthouses you want to divest yourselves of. The government may or may not respond, or it may make its choice. It might decide that in some part of the Gaspé Peninsula or of the North Shore, it wants to keep some lighthouses in partnership with a corporation.
Something else is bothering me. A Senate bill is subject to the same rules as a private member's bill. A member can table a bill in the House of Commons, aware of the fact that there will be no problem with the first and second reading. However, when it comes to the third reading, the Speaker may well declare that the bill will not go to third reading because it needs a Royal Recommendation. The same applies to Senate bills, when they involve government expenditures. The Senate cannot table any bill that involves government expenditures that were not provided for in the budget.
Mr. Chairman, you are the sponsor. Will this work be lost because we don't have the money to keep the lighthouses and turn them into historical sites? I presume that fairly soon, as a next step, before going too far with this bill, we should get the Speaker of the House to explain this matter to us. If we almost reach the report stage and the third reading is not allowed because the bill indirectly involves government expenditure, the Speaker will not grant Royal Recommendation.
The Speaker will have to advise us regarding this bill and tell us whether or not it requires a Royal Recommendation. Otherwise, we may end up working on it, hearing witnesses or even travelling, which might create expectations because the people in our respective ridings will think that it is good to see the government taking an interest in lighthouses. They have been abandoned for nearly 20 years, and now there is a glimmer of hope, because a committee is studying the issue. Nevertheless, there is many a slip between the cup and the lip, and the ribbon-cutting ceremony is still far away.
12:10 p.m.
Manager, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency
Let me briefly fill you in on the background. As you know, this bill was already tabled several times in the House. Twice in the past the Royal Recommendation was requested for it and both times, the House Speaker decided to refuse it.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC
This is what I am telling you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me repeat, a Senate bill is just like a private member's bill. It has to go through all the stages up to the third reading, but the Speaker will have to tell the House that it cannot go to third reading because it involves expenditure. In each and every case and in every department, if public funds are involved, whether or not they are in the budget, the bill is turned down.
For instance, employment insurance bills never get through, because they involve government expenditure. Precedents have been established with previous bills.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
I've got a few questions here, but Mr. Calkins tells me he has a 20-second question, and then I'd like to go on with some questions.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
I just want one more bit of clarification.
On the seven lighthouses that are inside national park boundaries right now, could you give me an idea of what the status is? Are they operated as an attraction in the national park, or are they just sitting there as buildings behind a gate that says “Keep Out”?
12:10 p.m.
Manager, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency
I think there's some variety. Most of them are not being operated as attractions, per se. Some of them do house other functions.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Thanks, Mr. Calkins. That's a good lead-in to where I was going, because the one I forgot to mention was Carmanah Point, I believe, which is also on the west coast. Both of those, Carmanah Point and Pachena Point, are functional lighthouses that are still manned and operational.
It would seem to me that if they're manned, operational, and have public access, like on the west coast trail, those would be considered priorities, I would hope, for having national heritage designations so they can be maintained as such. It would seem to me that it would sort of be....
Is that a logical assumption, or is it not fair to assume anything at this stage? Do you have an opinion on the condition of those lighthouses? I'm looking at Patricia Kell here from Parks.
12:10 p.m.
Manager, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency
I have no opinion on those specific lighthouses. From a heritage perspective, the primary consideration in deciding which lighthouses would merit being designated would be their heritage value.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Okay. Well, this whole question of royal recommendation is an interesting one, I suppose. I would have thought that we wouldn't have gotten to this stage if it hadn't received royal recommendation.
Has there been a ruling by the Speaker, Mr. Chair?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
As a point of clarification, the Speaker in the Senate has ruled that it is not a money bill. My expectation is that this will not be treated as a money bill in this Parliament, because it won't require new funding from Treasury Board. Even if it did require new funding from Treasury Board, it's my understanding that the language is “as long as it's not a burden on the people of Canada”.
You can actually get additional funds and still not classify, I believe.
I'm not the Speaker, and I don't get to decide on the final ruling, but it's my understanding that so far, it has not been classed as a money bill, definitely, by the Senate.
Did you want to have some input here, Ms. Kell?
12:15 p.m.
Manager, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency
I could maybe add a little bit of context. On two previous occasions the Speaker ruled that this was not a money bill, and I think that was partly because this bill was modelled on the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, which itself was ruled as not being a money bill. It also was a private member's bill.
There are some important differences between the two bills. The Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act applied to railway stations that were owned by railway companies, not by the federal government, and there was no maintenance obligation in that bill. So two of the big drivers of financial impact on the federal government did not exist in that case.
The other observation, with respect to it being a money bill, is that if the government were never to designate a lighthouse under this bill, there would be no or very little cost. So on some level it's within the power of the government to control the financial implications of the bill. That's my understanding.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Manager, Cabinet Affairs, Parks Canada Agency
The only comment I'd make is that if you were to look at the Parks Canada report on plans and priorities and at our departmental performance report, you would not find a heritage lighthouse protection program. I think there's probably a good argument to say that we would need to find some resources somewhere, in particular to administer the designation process. We would need to find a source of funds for people to do historic research on the petitions; to develop criteria for designation, maintenance, and alteration; to support an advisory committee that would help the minister in terms of looking at important matters dealing with the conservation of heritage value; and for public meetings, which are another financial obligation. So there are some important financial considerations there.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
I was going to ask about an advisory committee, because I see that the minister is obliged under the act to create such an advisory committee. He's also obliged to report back within five years on each one, what has been designated and how he's managed to dispose of it.
I can't imagine that the work can be done without cost. I think most of us would agree that this work can't be done without spending money. We certainly know from the experience of small craft harbours, which we beat to death around the committee table here, that it can't be done without money.
I think perhaps we're going to have to revisit the issue of where that money should come from, obviously, if it's of value to Canadian people. You can't expect departments to provide the service, whether it's Parks Canada or DFO, without adequate funding to deliver the intention.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
Perhaps if I could just interject here for a second, there are two issues at stake here. One is the bill itself and the other is the implementation of the bill. The issue is not so much whether it's going to cost money; the issue is whether the dollars come from the implementation. The issue in front of us is whether we are going to support this bill to protect heritage lighthouses, not whether or not we're going to question--well, we can all we want--the Speaker's ruling from the Senate that it's not going to cost dollars today. I think that was a different way of saying what Ms. Kell said, that the legislation itself costs nothing. When you start to apply it is when you spend the money.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Well, I think the discussion we just had with Mr. Tapley here would indicate that even to implement what the bill requires--to evaluate this over five years and create an advisory committee and go though an examination process and establish the historical evidence about heritage value--is going to require expenditure.