Fisheries Committee on April 1st, 2008

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

I appreciate your comments to Mr. MacAulay when you talked about how you're not really enamoured of putting x number of dollars in the bill and telling the government, “You must allocate x number of dollars”.

I fear we're in the chicken-and-egg syndrome. If we don't have this bill, then basically the status quo remains and not much will happen. We advocate all the time on various issues and never really say.... Even government backbenchers advocate all the time on specific issues for their constituents, for various groups, or they're critical without telling the government, “You must, by the way, have x number of dollars”, because those analyses are done after legislation is put forward. Then you could say, “Okay, for this particular year we're able to do so much in this regard according to the bill, and next year we could do more and more”.

You're absolutely correct. There is more than one department that will allocate funds to this, let alone community groups, other groups, and other people who will offer their resources as well. I would advise my colleagues, as Mr. Keddy has done, to get the process of this procedure and this bill through, and then the access, the resources, will come later. Without this, you're guaranteed nothing will happen, and then we'll have further deterioration of these lighthouses and more bills--except for Mr. Miller, Mr. Keddy, and others.

I've had similar legislation. I had this similar sort of parallel tracking, and I'm hoping this committee can agree to get it through fairly quickly and then back to the Senate for approval.

In your experience in the Senate, if the bill went back to the Senate amended, how quickly can it go through the Senate?

[Patricia Carney]

Well, I cannot ever speak on behalf of former senators. But I understand that since this bill has the backing of the government and has been certainly backed by the Liberal senators--it wouldn't have gotten through if it weren't for the Liberal senators--I can only assume that it will get quick passage if the House of Commons gives its stamp of approval. Just remember that the Senate can't initiate money bills.

I'm not discouraging your spending money on this bill, but as Mr. Keddy points out, if there is no process in place, you can't allocate. I understand that Treasury Board has money set aside for this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Go ahead, Mr. Miller.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Carney. Thank you, first, for coming today and taking the time. I know you're just beginning your retirement, and I certainly wish you well. I would be remiss if I didn't sincerely pass on my thank you, and I think I can say it on behalf of everyone, for carrying on Senator Forestall's dream of having this bill. Unfortunately, he's not around to see it to fruition. And of course Senator Murray was quite involved, and other groups. There is Barry MacDonald, and I see Chris Wiebe here. I know he has supported something.

Mr. Blais talked about money. I don't know whether I can say it as eloquently as Mr. Stoffer did, but he echoed Mr. Keddy's comments earlier that without this bill we have nothing. We have to start somewhere, and I think this is a great foundation.

Having money in this 2008-09 budget, knowing full well that with the time it takes to set out the criteria and that we're going to allow future groups to take over this.... The reality is, probably, that no money is needed in this budget year. That's how we end up with $12 billion, $13 billion, and $14 billion surpluses around here, by budgeting money that realistically isn't going to get used in a given year.

The government is behind this bill and supports this bill. So when the time comes, I think it would be remiss of them not to support it in some way. All you have to do is look at the amount of money that has been placed over the last number of years to look after our various wharves around the country. In this last budget, there was money put in there. The government recognizes it. You can argue that maybe it's not as much as some would like to see, but it's an increase. It's heading in the right direction.

That's my point in mentioning this. This bill certainly goes a long way in the right direction. I am going to be very happy to support it.

Thanks again, Senator Carney. I have no questions, but I thank you for your time.

I'm going to pass the rest of my time over to Mr. Kamp.

[Patricia Carney]

He has already asked all the questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you. I'm sure you'll get a transcript of that for your next road trip.

Go ahead, Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator Carney, for appearing here and for your work--and not only on this bill. I know you've been determined over the years about this, but you have also ably represented British Columbians, of which I'm one, for the last many years, so I appreciate that.

Perhaps you can help me understand the chronology of this bill. As I understand it, if everything goes according to plan we will have royal assent. Built into the bill is a two-year period following royal consent before it comes into force. In the two years following the coming into force, a couple of things happen. The minister can receive petitions, but during those two years the ministers who have any lighthouses under their jurisdictions can make public a list of lighthouses that are surplus to their operational requirements. Then, according to the bill, there's also a five-year period from the coming into force, when the minister considers the petitions he's received. After that five-year period, he or she has 90 days to publish the decisions made on the petitions they have received.

As you see the bill, is it only surplus lighthouses that will be the subject of petitions? Is it only lighthouses that are the subject of petitions that will then become designated? Those are two kinds of related questions. In other words, does it require somebody who has an interest in actually taking over this lighthouse to make a petition for it? So will only lighthouses that are divested be designated heritage lighthouses, or is it built into the bill that some lighthouses that continue to be owned, maintained, and even perhaps operated by the federal government can be designated heritage lighthouses?

[Patricia Carney]

Let me say that it is certainly not restricted to surplus lighthouses. The Newfoundland and B.C. lights are operating lights, and so are most of the Nova Scotia ones.

Divestiture is a program that DFO already has and seems to be operating. This might help it become more national, but there are no surplus lighthouses in British Columbia, and I do not believe there are any in Newfoundland. I bow to my colleagues on that. But it would provide that facilities on the light station that are not being used by DFO--for instance, at unmanned light stations--could be used by communities.

I give the example of Sisters, which is an operating light, but since it's unmanned, the lighthouse keeper's house is available for a group to take over. Georgina Point in Mayne Island, which you would know, just the next island up from me, is an operating light, but it is unmanned. It's one of the minority of unmanned lights in British Columbia. The lighthouse keeper's house is operated by a community group. So under a licence of occupation, operating lighthouses can make surplus facilities available to communities.

As I understand it, you need to have a petition. That's not a problem. You have to advertise and tell people that if they want their light stations to be available under this program, they need to find 25 able-bodied people over 18 to sign a petition.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Does signing a petition require me to take it over...or just a community-minded group that says this should be designated as a heritage lighthouse?

[Patricia Carney]

Yes, you start the process. The process starts with the public. Right now, what's been happening is the public has not been involved. DFO transferred our light station to Parks Canada, and we read about it in the paper. DFO, of which you are the august parliamentary secretary, came and dismantled our assistant lighthouse keeper's house--just took it away overnight--when we could have used it for community purposes. The process starts with a public petition and with the announcement that the minister will accept petitions over time.

It was Senator Forrestall's idea to put in these time milestones. I didn't think it was necessary, but he thought of them as maximums, so that the bill, as Mr. Stoffer says.... Mr. Stoffer has done more work on this light bill I think over the eight years than anyone else, and Mr. Keddy has too, but you've been outstanding on this, and if you don't put in the time milestones, nothing will happen. It can happen fast or it can happen late, but the milestones are there to make sure there's some sort of reporting process.

You can pass this and get royal assent, and I tell you that you'll have petitions--not a lot, because people have to do business plans. To address Mr. Blais' point, they have to get together, decide how they're going to do this, and then submit an application. You know how government works; it takes forever. We're just hoping the lighthouses don't fall down.

My office is dark today, my BlackBerry goes, my telecommunications are cut off, my able assistant Sarah Cuff is already unemployed as of last night, and my retirement will not start until royal assent is received on this bill, so my determination will continue.

I want to thank you all for your attention and for all your work over the years--and Mr. Miller's work on this latest bill--to get this through. People care about their light stations. They care about their heritage. They care about their history.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Senator Carney. Certainly on behalf of the committee, we thank you for your hard work also.

Following up on Senator Forrestall, being new here, I only had the opportunity to spend some time with him, but certainly his dedication to ensuring that this bill was passed was nothing that missed us in the short time we had to share with him. Thank you for your work in following up on that.

Thank you for your testimony here today and for your comments. We wish you all the best in your retirement. We hope your assistant finds employment soon.

Gentlemen, there are a couple of quick items we have to deal with. We're not going to be taking a break right now. We have a budget request. I need a motion to approve a budget for witnesses to the tune of $20,200.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

It is so moved by Mr. Matthews and seconded by Mr. Keddy.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Blais, there was something you raised earlier, when we began our meeting.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Regarding the tragedy that occurred off the coast of Nova Scotia and the death of the Magdalen Island residents, I can give you the addresses of the victims' families so that a message of condolence can be sent to them on behalf of the committee. I do not believe we need to pass resolution in this case.

As for the decisions that we have reached, in light of the order of business and our upcoming work agenda, I think the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure should meet tomorrow afternoon. This is generally when our meetings are scheduled. The purpose of the meeting would be to lay out for committee members a schedule of future meetings. Right now, we have a series of commitments to uphold.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Blais. You had mentioned to me earlier that maybe we could have a steering committee meeting tomorrow after QP, if that would be possible. We'll arrange to have it after QP tomorrow. I'll have somebody send a notice. Julia will find a room for us and notify us for a steering committee meeting.

We're booked up until our April break. Following that, we'll be doing at least three to four days of estimates, and then we'll be working on some details following that.

On Thursday we have more witnesses here: Natalie Bull from the Heritage Canada Foundation, Barry MacDonald from the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society, David Bradley from Memorial University's Maritime History Archives, and Peter Noreau from Corporation des gestionnaires de phares de l'estuaire et du golfe du Saint-Laurent.

We'll see you on Thursday. Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.