Evidence of meeting #21 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was access.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
I guess, tying in to the spirit and intent of the bill, to be respected by third parties, that ownership and so on, how are we going to maintain the integrity if the situation is such in some circumstances that you've just told me?
9:20 a.m.
Director, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency
I think the important distinction from the heritage protection perspective is that at a particular light station you may have both things that are of heritage interest as well as other things, modern infrastructure that supports, for example, access to the things that are of heritage interest.
If I can just give an example, the purpose of the wharf is to allow access to the site. If you consider the wharf, which indeed may not be very old, to be a heritage structure, that then creates obligations when you care for that, and the kinds of international standards for care of heritage structures include things like not changing the materials that something is made out of, not changing the design of something.
So in the case of a wharf, if you had an opportunity to upgrade to materials that perform better under the circumstances or to a design that accommodated a new kind of vessel, if you have designated that wharf as a heritage structure, you'll be precluded from doing that.
The purpose of the distinction we're making is to say we should treat the things that have heritage value, like heritage buildings, in a way that respects that heritage value, and we should manage the things that don't meet that test in a way that enables access to the place.
I guess the other consideration for me when I look at this issue is that in the bill there's an obligation, once a lighthouse is designated, to do maintenance on that lighthouse. That means that someone, somehow, has to have access to the site. So already built into the bill is some requirement for access.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
But then there seems to be an obvious problem. If a community group takes ownership, it seems from Mr. Hegge's comments that there's going to be no funding, or right now there's no funding available, it seems, to keep it to a standard that you have espoused. Am I correct in that or am I wrong?
9:20 a.m.
Director, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency
My understanding of the reason the bill was proposed in the first place was that there was a concern that lighthouses of heritage interest were not being cared for appropriately by the federal government, yes.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Right. So if we go the route of a heritage lighthouse being taken over by a community group, then there's going to be a requirement to maintain an appropriate standard, listening to you, but listening to Mr. Hegge, it seems there's a tremendous financial shortfall to maintain that standard, it seems to me. So that seems to be the dilemma we're facing here, and I would just like to hear some comment from either one of you on that.
9:25 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
What I was saying, or building on what Patricia said, is if a wharf is designated as part of the heritage site and then entails a higher standard in terms of upkeep in accordance with heritage standards, that's going to drive up the costs.
As you quite rightly pointed out, some costs are going to be associated with maintaining access, but our position is that cost is going to be much less than if we have to keep a wharf, a walkway, or what have you to a heritage standard. We're not suggesting in our remarks, in terms of the financial constraints, that no money would be spent on providing access. Obviously there would have to be some.
From our perspective, given the financial shortfall, we're trying to mitigate the amount of funding that would be required and restrict it as much as possible to the part of the site that has heritage value.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you very much, and welcome.
Mr. Hegge, before they're turned over or designated, will you have to bring them to a standard? Will that be the responsibility, and is this where you feel the shortfall in dollars is going to be?
We have problems in Prince Edward Island where we have lighthouses as tourist attractions. Of course, lighthouses happen to be handy to water and handy to the bank. The bank is washing away and the cement is falling in and it becomes dangerous, which of course then means...you know what happens: then they just block it off. That's what we don't want to see.
I'd like you to comment on that. I think you're aware of some of the situations we have.
9:25 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
You're quite right, and that's why we would need some funding to be able to give this bill some life. Because we're not about to divest ourselves of our lighthouses in the condition they're in, that's why we need the money to bring them up to a reasonable standard.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
What you're telling me is there'd have to be the proper allocation of dollars before DFO would be in support of this bill.
9:25 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We have to find a source of funds to be able to implement the bill.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Do you have any idea how many lighthouses are in use now in the country?
9:25 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We had a bit of this discussion last time. We have roughly 750 that you could define as lighthouses. Within that number, about 250 are the kinds of lighthouses you see on postcards. The other 500 or so are navigational aids, but they do meet the definition of lighthouses as well, depending on how broadly you want to define it.
I don't think we're seriously talking about the 750 being potential heritage lighthouses. That would drive the costs up to be....
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
You're talking about 200-and-some that possibly could be in that area.
9:25 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
A portion of that.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It would depend on the standards or the criteria the parks minister would be developing, so we can't answer that question. We can ballpark it.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
No, I can see your point. It's all on what designation they're in.
When a lighthouse is going to be designated, do you feel they have the proper consultation in place to make sure you have somebody in the community who, when you receive or are in charge of the lighthouse, would keep it up to a certain standard?
9:25 a.m.
Manager, Cabinet Affairs, Parks Canada Agency
The designation process is done through a public petition. So 25 Canadians would get together and submit a proposal to designate a lighthouse as a heritage lighthouse. Criteria would be developed. That authority rests with the Minister of the Environment. The designation criteria would be in keeping with national and international standards.
As well, if there were lighthouses surplus to operational requirements, there would be an obligation to publish those, to make them known to people who could be thinking of submitting a petition to designate them. If that were the case, a process has been built into the bill.
For example, a community group would need to come together and say they were interested in taking over this lighthouse for a continuing public purpose as a local heritage tourism attraction. That community group would be required to provide a written commitment to the Minister of the Environment at the same time they're submitting their petition to designate the lighthouse as a heritage lighthouse. A business case would also have to be prepared to--
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
But they would have to receive it in the proper condition too.
9:30 a.m.
Manager, Cabinet Affairs, Parks Canada Agency
That would be part of the business case. The group would have to provide some indication of their financial capabilities and any assistance they may require.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
For starters, as you probably know—and if you don't know, I am about to tell you—the Bloc Québécois does not support the bill as it is currently worded, just as it did not support the earlier version of the bill.
Mr. Hegge, you wondered how we could have a bill to designate lighthouses in the absence of funding for this purpose. Basically, it's nothing more than a pious wish. You've identified the problem quite clearly.
This is a very interesting bill and I have nothing against the principle behind it, which is to recognize heritage lighthouses and protect them from the fate described in the documentation. We saw how one burned out lighthouse fell into disrepair over time. If there is no money available to rehabilitate these structures, not only does this create an untenable situation, but it means that your department will be forced into having to make extremely complicated decisions, such as finding other areas in which to cut back in order to fulfill this bill's commitments.
I would like to get a better handle on the numbers. I know Mr. Matthews mentioned this earlier, but I assume you have some idea of the cost involved. We have heard estimates in the order of $24 to $45 million for access structures. I assume you have done a cost estimate. Would you care to share your findings with us?
