Fisheries Committee on April 1st, 2008

[Patricia Carney]

You'll hear about that from the Heritage Canada Foundation, which has done that kind of work. According to Heritage Canada's information--Chris Wiebe was here, I believe--one in six lighthouses in the States built before a certain cutoff period is considered a heritage light. So that's about 600 lighthouses.

Of 600 lighthouses, one in six were heritage lights. If you apply that standard in Canada, I think it would be higher.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Now, you indicated too in your presentation that DFO has really no mandate and no money to deal with this issue at the moment. Am I correct?

[Patricia Carney]

It has no mandate. Money is a question of what you use budgeted money on. That's a different--

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

But just to get you on the right track, which I'm sure you're quite capable of doing, in terms of DFO and the funding they have, everybody around this table knows they don't have enough right now.

[Patricia Carney]

Never enough.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

No, but it's very scarce. The fact is that when this is passed and the requirements come into place, without any dollar figure attached to this bill, is it not going to create a problem?

Do you think, Senator, that this committee should propose a motion or an amendment to make sure the proper funding, $65 million or whatever, is attached or is suggested to the government?

I agree with Mr. Keddy. The path is important. The legislation is important. But it's absolutely useless if we don't have the money to do it with. I'd like you to comment on that.

[Patricia Carney]

There are two parts to your question.

A senator cannot introduce a money bill, so—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Well I'm just asking for your....

[Patricia Carney]

No, but for the record, you asked about—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

It has to go through the House.

[Patricia Carney]

Yes, and on two occasions, the House of Commons Speaker has said, “This is not a money bill”.

When you're asking about allotting specific dollars, that is in your hands, but I'm loath to do that, because if you put a dollar figure, it'll be spent, and in many of these lights, the dollar figure might be quite low because the community will be offering resources. In our case, DFO has already maintained that it has an obligation to support operating lights, whether they're heritage or not, and it is not, but that's a different subject. It's letting the operating lights crumble. That's a separate issue from heritage lights.

And in many cases, Parks Canada offers in-kind services that there's no dollar figure on. For instance, on our foghorn project, they will do the environmental cleanup, which may just be a coat of paint. Treasury Board has said a mitigating factor for lead paint may be just a coat of paint. They have provided a structural engineering survey to ensure the building is in good shape. They've done a cultural survey. There are no dollar figures attached to that, and the community will raise the money to refurbish it and the community will maintain it through the sale of postcards and pictures and other things.

So I'm saying you're free to suggest the $65 million, but it may not be necessary because that money may be phased in over time.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

As an example, there is a problem we have in my own district, in East Point, where the lighthouse was too handy to the water, as it happened, and they had to move the whole structure back a piece. The problem we have is that we need some armour rock, or whatever, put in place. It costs a lot of money.

In another area, we had trouble down in Point Prim with the painting problem. Actually, the lead paint, of course, became a problem. It all had to be done over again.

What I'm getting at is that I don't believe you're ever going to have communities or groups take these over and be able to take on these massive figures. That's why I asked for your suggestion on the dollars.

[Patricia Carney]

Again, if it's an operating light, it may not be a heritage site. It's going to take time before these heritage sites are designated, beyond the ones that are already national historic sites, or designated as historic sites, so I can't give you the answer you're looking for.

My position right now—nothing to do with heritage lights—is that if a DFO operation is crumbling, it should be replaced out of its operational funds, and I'm afraid that if you put a budget figure on this...and I'm not against it, but the money that is allocated to so-called heritage lights may go on other issues, may go on other spending.

It should be repaired, okay? But that's not an issue of this bill on heritage lights. Point Atkinson is already a historic site, and the roof is falling in.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

That's the problem, and of course in some of the areas that we have, there are massive dollars involved, and I don't believe the communities could ever take it over. But again, it's a DFO funding problem to put it in proper shape. All I'm fearful of is that when this goes through and they have to be designated, or should be, or could be, then the groups or community groups couldn't even look at them because they can't afford to do it.

What I'd like to see is the bill in a form so that there'd be some way at least. And you can't take the money from small craft harbours, the dollars that are needed in this. What you're doing is very important, but if you don't have the dollars in place, we can't do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.

Mr. Blais.

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

I would like to continue along the same lines as my colleague. You have heard the comments of departmental officials and in particular those of Mr. Hegge. You have also heard my views and those of other committee members. It appears that there is no easy solution.

In order to see the light at the end of the tunnel, I would be prepared to accept your recommendations. However, from where I stand, there is no solution. On the one hand, there is a desire to protect heritage lighthouses; on the other hand, we want to transfer responsibility for these structures to the community. The transfer of responsibility comes at a very high price. Simple maintenance such as a fresh coat of paint is not that costly per se. However, there are higher costs associated with decontaminating a site or with respecting the heritage or historical nature of a lighthouse.

In my opinion, it would be irresponsible to support this bill, in light of the financial realities. How do you feel about this?

[Patricia Carney]

First of all, I would like to thank you very much for suggesting an important change to the present bill, which is to restrict it to federal jurisdiction. In earlier versions of the bill, you opposed the wording on the grounds that it should be restricted, and I thank you for that. This bill applies only to federal jurisdictions.

In terms of the cost, I don't think it's irresponsible to turn a derelict or heritage building that is in danger of being demolished into an economic opportunity for the community involved, if that's what's happening, as is the case on my island. Many of the witnesses have told you that there are funds in other departments that can go towards supporting this bill.

Decontamination of sites is a federal responsibility under Environment. The idea that you leave a building contaminating a park--which would be the case in Saturna--and not address it would be irresponsible. Decontaminating that building is responsible. And doing it in a way that allows a community to utilize that building I consider responsible.

Each case will be decided on its merit, and that's why we've left the criteria at the minister's discretion, because what is going to work on the west coast won't work, necessarily, on the east coast. I do not think that over time.... I know this is going to cost a lot of money. The money that has to be spent on the lighthouses is either DFO's responsibility now, under their operating light mandate--and does not have to do with heritage--or money that can be diverted from other departments, or raised by the community.

In the case of our foghorn project, we have estimated that it will cost $50,000. Half of that is to put power on site, because there's no power to the foghorn. That's not a big amount of money for us to raise, and the maintenance costs are considered to be $2,000 a year. On two other Parks Canada properties, one of which involves a lighthouse, the operating costs, the maintenance costs, are about $2,000, which the community raises without difficulty. So I don't think the cost implications are part of....

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

To clarify what I just said, it is not that I am opposed to the idea of designating certain worthy structures as heritage lighthouses. I don't disagree with the idea of protecting and designating heritage lighthouses. I do not have a problem with that. The problem, as I see it, is that it would be irresponsible of us to support a bill if there is no proper funding in place.

On behalf of my party, I am prepared to go along with the principle of designating certain lighthouses as heritage structures. However, the department has already told us that implementing this bill's provisions will cost money, not to mention that there will be additional costs as well. That is where I see a potential problem.

[Patricia Carney]

I realize your concern. You're overlooking the fact that right now communities cannot do this; they cannot contribute. I'm told that Mike Forrestall's son Tom is dying to go down to offer his services to paint a community lighthouse in Nova Scotia. There is no way to do it now because there is no way to actually permit the communities to assist, short of divesting them, turning them over.

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

With all due respect, Ms. Carney, I do not believe that a bill can resolve the type of problem that you are talking about. In my view, the purpose of bills is to regulate an overall situation and to ensure that given criteria are applied. What you are saying here is that the problem lies with the way in which the department deals with lighthouses and the agencies that will be eventually be providing some assistance. I do not think that a bill can resolve this situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

It's an interesting debate, Mr. Blais, but we'll have to move on.

Mr. Stoffer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Carney, for coming today and working so hard over these many years, and for working with the late Mike Forrestall, and for your willingness to work with all parties in order to keep this as non-political as possible, to move forward a really important issue that affects us right across the country.

You had talked about the amendments aspects of it and that you would be supportive of the amendments that Minister Hearn or his department had put forward.

One of them was of course the “related structure” versus “related building”, and the other was the access one. Were there any other amendments that you foresee may be coming forward?

[Patricia Carney]

First of all, many amendments have been incorporated in this bill over the time. The only two that I understand are being proposed by DFO.... One is to add wording to the preamble, for interpretive reasons, that says:

AND WHEREAS it is important to provide access to heritage lighthouses, to understand and appreciate their contribution to Canada's maritime heritage;

That would be in the preamble.

Basically, in terms of the second one, and “related structure”--and this is Mr. Miller's--we would drop from the existing Bill S-215, (b), under clause 2, which says:

any structure on the site on which the lighthouse is situated, the maintenance of which is necessary in order to provide access to the site.

We would drop that and change that phrase, but add the access to the preamble as an interpretive.... That's the saw-off we both agreed with because it's dealing with both their concerns, our concerns.

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

Okay. In my discussion with various groups like Barry MacDonald's and the lighthouse groups in Nova Scotia, they are also supportive of this approach.

[Patricia Carney]

Yes. Just remember, access is not as big a problem in Nova Scotia. I have a list here of the 125 stations where access is a problem. In Newfoundland and Labrador, of course, there are 26 light stations only accessible by water or helicopter. Nova Scotia has 34.

You have a lot of light stations--only 34.

New Brunswick has 12; Prince Edward Island has two. As I say, in British Columbia, it's 51 of 52. So access is an important question.