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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Patricia Kell  Manager, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency
Cal Hegge  Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Doug Tapley  Manager, Cabinet Affairs, Parks Canada Agency
David Burden  Director, Real Property, Safety and Security, Divestiture, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

So five of 14. That goes back to the two different types of historic sites, one where the Government of Canada owns the property and one where there's a lease or some type of an arrangement whereby Parks Canada runs a historic site but somebody else owns the property. Is that correct?

11:55 a.m.

Manager, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency

Patricia Kell

That's a possibility, but no. There are sites that are owned and operated by Parks Canada. What I was referring to earlier was that in a few cases Parks Canada owns sites but a third party operates them. So we have an agreement with a third party that operates the sites.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

So we've got a contract.

11:55 a.m.

Manager, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency

Patricia Kell

That's right.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

So every national historic site is owned by the people of Canada?

11:55 a.m.

Manager, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency

Patricia Kell

No. There are about 150 of those. About 50 sites are owned by other federal government departments, and then the balance, which are about 700 sites, are owned outside the federal government. These are national historic sites that are owned by provincial or municipal governments, by private individuals, or by corporations.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

And of the lighthouses, nine of those would not be owned by the people of Canada directly.

11:55 a.m.

Manager, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency

Patricia Kell

Five are owned by Parks Canada. All the rest, but one, are owned by Fisheries and Oceans, and that one has been divested to a community group.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

All right. Good.

How many are located in national parks? Are there any lighthouses currently located in any of the national parks?

11:55 a.m.

Manager, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency

Patricia Kell

Yes. Parks Canada owns about 12, so seven in addition to the five. There are about seven that are on Parks Canada lands that are not national historic sites.

Noon

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

So now we're up to 12. Is Parks Canada or is Fisheries and Oceans responsible for marine parks, marine protected areas? They're designated under the Canada National Parks Act, are they not?

Noon

Manager, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency

Patricia Kell

They have their own act, but Parks Canada is responsible.

Noon

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

How many of these lighthouses would be contained inside those marine protected areas or directly adjacent to those marine protected areas?

Noon

Manager, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency

Patricia Kell

There are currently none.

Noon

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

None. That's very interesting.

I have some concerns with respect to the bill, and maybe I can get a little bit of clarification.

Clause 11 says, “No person shall remove, alter, destroy, sell, assign, transfer”. I'm going too fast for the interpreter--before I get a lecture--but we can all read clause 11 if we want to.

My concern with this is if we designate a lighthouse as a heritage site that is owned by the people of Canada, then the people of Canada, ultimately, have a responsibility to maintain it in a state prescribed by the minister should this act come into force.

What happens when we've divested a lighthouse, it's privately owned by someone else, and it starts to become dilapidated or is not maintained appropriate to the letter of this act? An unintended consequence would be that the person who owns the property would be in contravention of this act. My questions to you is, would the Government of Canada, would the people or the taxpayers of Canada, be responsible for restoring it?

I guess we would have the option of declassifying it—and the process is outlined here—as a historic site. I'm wondering, from your interpretation of this and your dealing with some of the federal heritage buildings—I'm sure you've probably gone through similar situations—does this act give the people of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada, adequate room to manoeuvre if something that was classified as a heritage lighthouse is no longer kept in the condition it needs to be kept in, so the taxpayers are not on the hook for somebody else's inability to maintain the building?

Noon

Manager, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency

Patricia Kell

The way the bill is written it applies only to federal property, so only as long as a lighthouse is held by the federal government can this act apply to it.

One of the provisions of the act is that should the government want to sell a designated heritage lighthouse, then there must be some kind of protection put on that lighthouse as it goes out of the federal inventory. That could mean that as the government sells it we would seek provincial designation on it or we'd place conditions on the sale, so the new owner would have to look after the heritage character of the building. In some jurisdictions it's possible to get a heritage covenant or an easement on the property that requires the owner to maintain the heritage character.

The way the bill is designed, it's not that the bill applies once something is sold, but that as you sell it the new owner agrees to take on the obligation of looking after the heritage character of that building.

Noon

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB

In the province I'm from, Alberta, there are provincial designations for heritage buildings and heritage sites. Through a divestiture process, would it not be fair and reasonable to assume that these could be handed over as provincial heritage sites where it's appropriate?

I'm sure there are some Albertans who are particularly interested in lighthouses, but on the whole, I think it would be seen as more of a regional or local issue, whether or not the lighthouse was to be protected, much as there are lots of issues in my particular riding that I don't think would be of great concern to taxpayers in coastal communities or other areas of Canada. I don't see any mention of any provincial jurisdiction in there, and I don't suppose it's possible to do so. From your perspective, talking about the federal heritage buildings program with local heritage buildings or provincial heritage buildings, is there any cooperation there? Is there any experience that you could give to this committee as far as downgrading one from a federal to a provincial heritage building?

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy

I'll ask you to be fairly brief in your answer, if you could be. You can come back to this if you want.

Noon

Manager, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency

Patricia Kell

I'm sure the provinces wouldn't consider it downgrading, but, yes, we do have some experience with that, both in terms of consulting with local and provincial interests when we are considering designating a federal heritage building and then also because a number of federal heritage buildings over the years have been divested and we have sought to do the same thing that's outlined in the bill here, which is to place protections on them as they leave the federal inventory. So getting a provincial or municipal designation is one of the very good tools we have to do that.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy

Thank you very much.

Mr. Simms? You're okay.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Could I get a quick one in?

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy

Of course, you could, Mr. Cuzner.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

The last time you appeared before the committee I brought forward a concern on two derelict ships that were anchored off Arisaig harbour. We've since had action on that, so I want to thank you for anything you might have done for that. I appreciate it.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy

Thank you, Mr. Cuzner.

That was a very poignant and artful lighthouse question.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Things have happened at our office. You just say, “Oh, no problem,” no matter how little we might know about it, but anyway we do have action on this.