Fisheries Committee on April 8th, 2008

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

Do they put money into keeping it up to an acceptable standard?

[Robert Square]

Yes and no. They are quite supportive of our efforts, but Cove Island does have maintenance issues based on the fact that the last keeper left in 1991, so there has been no real presence out on the island since then. The stone house, the keeper's house, because it's been closed up and unoccupied for a length of time, has rot in the floorboards, the floor timbers.

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

What about access to it? Is it regularly accessible?

[Robert Square]

Access is a bit of a challenge, given the declining water levels of the Great Lakes. Instead of just stepping off a boat, you have to sort of--

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

Yes, but is there a boat that goes there regularly?

[Robert Square]

No, there isn't.

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

If I wanted to get there, how would I get there?

[Robert Square]

You would arrange to go by private tour boat if you wanted to get off on the island, or travel across on the car ferry, the Chi-Cheemaun, from Tobermory to South Baymouth.

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

Does your association fundraise as well to try to keep this thing in a reasonable state?

[Robert Square]

We are at present working on various fundraising initiatives--a book on the history of the light, and a replication of an old federal manual for lightkeepers.

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

Thank you very much.

I want to ask Mr. Goodacre a question or two.

You talked about property and you talked about the need for legal frameworks when you're talking about ownership, and you talked about the necessity of a funding, or fiscal, framework. This legislation doesn't have any funding provisions, so how do you see...? Since you place such priority on a funding framework, how do you see that evolving as a result of this bill?

[Rick Goodacre]

I noticed that there was a lot of discussion about this last week, and this is bound to come up. And as Senator Carney said, this is not a money bill. It cannot be a money bill, originally being in the Senate. And I think everyone's kind of dancing around the question and they really want to ask what this is going to cost.

I don't know what it's going to cost. I would say that if you're talking about maintenance of lighthouses—and I think that's one of the reasons this bill is here—a building that no longer has a use tends to become neglected. If some of these structures are now being cycled out of use, they will be left and neglected.

If the bill is saying that if it's designated a heritage facility then there has to be some minimum expenditure in order to maintain these places so they don't degrade, then there will be a cost associated with that. And I would say that, with what you heard last week from Fisheries and Oceans, there's no ability in your existing budget to take care of heritage character buildings, because that's not within their mandate. So that will have to be identified as a function, and there would be some costs assigned to that. I mean, this won't happen unless there's some expenditure of dollars.

And when there are provisions in the bill for maintenance, again, you have to have a maintenance schedule. There has to logically be some costs assigned to that. But I don't see this as a major sudden upsweep in restoration. As Natalie Bull of Heritage Canada said last week, this is not a bill to suddenly turn these places into historic theme parks, where you have huge budgets to restore everything and make them ideal sites for presentation. They aren't necessarily all going to settle and become museums. Some of them might, especially on the east coast or in Ontario, but much less so on the west coast, where lighthouses are still mostly functioning, whether they're staffed or not. But I see that their logic will be that there will be some costs associated here.

I think another factor to consider here is that the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, through the Parks Canada Agency, has had a cost-sharing program for a number of years for national and historic sites. If it's a national and historic site and it can be in private hands, it can be a store. Rogers' Chocolates in Victoria is a national historic site. All kinds of different places can be national historic sites. But if you're a public entity, you can apply to the national cost-sharing program for some money.

Well, the way to keep a lid on that spending is simply by putting a lid on the budget. And they're saying, well, okay, it's $2 million; that's it, that's all there is. It's not a question of how much you need and that's what the budget is. The question is how much we are willing to allocate. So there's always that side of the decision, saying, okay, there's a pot of money for this maintenance program and these sites can apply to this pot of money. But they can easily put a lid on that amount of money. And that lid is often set by saying how much we're willing to spend.

So that's the same with local governments when they make money available. The City of Vancouver is providing density to buildings, to incentivate them. They now are doing a complete reassessment of that program because they don't want to create too much density, and they're also looking at the gap between how much it takes to make a building become rehabilitated in a marketplace situation and how much they're willing to spend.

So it's give and take. It will be negotiated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Goodacre.

Mr. Blais.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, Mr. Square, I would like to thank you for your brief. I read it carefully. I know that if you have gone to the trouble of writing a brief—and this takes nothing away from those who did not—it means you have gone the extra mile to prepare for us. So I thank you.

You will understand however that I am uncomfortable with your request or complaint. Yes, heritage lighthouses deserve to be recognized, protected and maintained. Maybe they are recognized by the department but they are not maintained. I think we all agree on this. This means that over time, as they deteriorate, they disappear and it is our loss.

In my view, the bill will not help. I would like to hear you on this. In your submission, Mr. Square, you have a short paragraph dealing with Bill S-215. I would like to give you an opportunity to discuss further the bill under consideration. I would like to hear from you a compelling case that this bill will indeed improve the situation in the short, medium or long term within a financial framework. A recognition framework is one thing, but it is the funding framework, as you know, that makes the difference between a well-maintained lighthouse that stays and one that does not. How do you see this from the point of view of the bill?

[Robert Square]

I think Bill S-215 will allow the non-profit organizations that will eventually be running a lot of the heritage lights the opportunity to take care of them. It'll allow the organizations to work with the government agencies responsible for heritage preservation.

Because we're outside of the government, our organizations would have greater leeway in what we could do as far as fundraising is concerned. Somebody would be far more amiable and willing to give money to a non-profit heritage organization that was taking care of a lighthouse rather than to Fisheries and Oceans. In that way we can work together, whether it's on matching grants or some sort of creative fundraising or cost-sharing arrangements, and think outside the box, so to speak.

Non-profits also have a large volunteer pool they can draw on. One of the communications I've been working on is regarding the restoration of the fog alarm building. I've been in contact with Ingersoll Rand and the company that made the engines for the compressors, Lister diesel. Those two companies are quite interested in lending assistance in our restoration ideas. When the process goes through, Bill S-215 would give those organizations legitimacy in the restoration efforts, along with the government.

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

Thank you.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts the proverb says. I do not really like that proverb because I am sure that Greeks are not less generous than others. Whatever the case may be, it means it may be dangerous to accept a gift because it may cause more problems than solutions.

It is well known that some heritage lighthouses are not currently well maintained and that certain locations are contaminated. It is a fact. Wouldn't a non-profit organization made up of volunteers and well-intentioned people run the risk of getting stuck with the problems and insufficient funding? With all due respect, you will end up with heritage lighthouses, okay, but also with all the funding problems that come with them. We may end up not doing you a favour.

What do you think?

[Robert Square]

As far as site contamination and the condition of the properties go, we've had unofficial discussions with Fisheries and Oceans officials and have received a fair number of site contamination and habitation reports. They're quite aware of the site conditions, and we're quite aware of our site conditions. I guess that comes into the association's ability to produce a business plan for the site. You can't do everything all at once, that's for sure.

At Cove Island we're quite aware of the site deficiencies, but they are manageable. By doing a proper phased business plan over many years, you can manage it. I think it's very manageable. On getting into areas where we'd be over our heads, I think we have enough expertise to draw on, both public and private, that would act as very valuable business resources and heritage preservation resources for us.

It will be a process. It's a long-term plan of five or ten years, but you do it smartly and efficiently within your own financial abilities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you, Mr. Square.

Thank you, Mr. Blais.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to say thanks to our witnesses. It's the passion and the stories that make some of these things real for Canadians, particularly as so few Canadians actually do visit these places, some for just remoteness' sake and others perhaps in ignorance of the importance of our history.

Also, I'd like to say a quick thanks to the committee. Normally I sit on the environment committee. It's a pleasure to be at a committee that has such collegiality, with folks asking questions and moving ahead. We don't have that similar circumstance at environment right now. It's a pleasure to be here on fisheries.

I represent the riding of Skeena--Bulkley Valley, which is the northwest quarter of British Columbia. It's an extensive coastal riding, with some of the most remote places in our country. They're difficult to get to and dangerous to travel in. As proven by the sinking of the Queen of the North and a number of other vessels over the years, there are treacherous waters on the west coast of British Columbia. Lighthouses have played an integral role. You talked about the development and the history of our country. Without lighthouses, the trade and the building in that part of the world would have been impossible.

I have a question about this bill. Committee members will forgive me, as obviously I'm new, temporarily filling in for Mr. Stoffer, who has a great passion for lighthouses. I might ask questions that have already been answered by other witnesses, so the committee might be hearing it again, but sometimes a pair of new eyes can help when you're looking at a situation.

It seems to me, in reading through this bill, that the fundamental question--Mr. Goodacre, you spoke to this--is money. I'm also my party's critic for Parks Canada and some of the heritage sites that they're responsible for, and we've had consistent and ongoing reports on a lack of funding and a lack of upkeep on the capital stock in Canada for our heritage sites in general. Essentially, this bill seems to want to include lighthouses into that assembly of important places, find them some criteria and designation.

I guess my question, to put a fine point on it, is do you have any sentiment or experience that the government, if this designation were to go through and were to be included, would make more money available? At the end of the day, if you were put onto this list, if lighthouses were now designated in such a way, would that open up a source of revenue for you folks to be able to protect these places?

[Everdina Toxopéus]

Perhaps I can address that.

Speaking for Cabot Head, with the bill we would have a firm base to work with. We're a not-for-profit organization at Cabot Head. The lighthouse has been on our lease. We've had it since 1986, and in 1994 we got incorporated. We do active fundraising, but every five years we have to renegotiate our lease with Fisheries and Oceans and with the municipality.

If we were designated as a heritage site, that would be one barrier out of our road. It would make it easy. As volunteers, as lighthouse enthusiasts, we still would do the fundraising, the dinners. We have an active gift shop and an art studio that raise money for us. With that we keep the light up. We add to it. We're working on it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Moving to the point that was raised earlier by Mr. Goodacre, do you feel that in this legislation, or in the way the government treats these heritage lighthouses, there should be any secondary designation for places of importance that don't have the visitors, that don't have the access that some other places might, perhaps in eastern Canada or closer to some of the larger population centres? There may be an historically important place, but one that's identified as very difficult to get to. The fundraising capacity for a non-profit group, if there is one, or an association would be much more limited than for a group working on the other side of Quebec City, say, or near where some of you folks represent.

Do you feel there should be some caveat in here for places of a more remote nature?

[Everdina Toxopéus]

If you have a lighthouse that is specifically very historically valuable, then I think all of Canada should strive to keep it alive. Otherwise, how is Canada going to keep its heritage in the next 10, 20, even 100 years from now? European countries have kept the old buildings alive and in relatively good order so that people can visit them. They've made that effort.

Canada is a young country. If we don't start keeping our important heritage buildings free or accessible, we've lost them. And some would need more help than others, I would think.

[The Chair, Conservative, Fabian Manning]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Keddy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing today. A couple of points were made. Mr. Blais mentioned that Mr. Square spoke with a great deal of passion, and I agree with that. What I've heard from all of our witnesses is that you also have a passion tempered with pragmatism. I appreciate that.

I had carriage of this bill in a former incarnation in the House and have supported the bill the couple of times that it has come before the House. I understand that our members are concerned about the costs here, but I think there are a couple of things we should be clear on, and I just want to put this out to you folks to see if you're in agreement.

First of all, the process won't result in every lighthouse in Canada becoming a historic light, nor should they all be historic lights. There's a dual reality here, wherein we will have some heritage designations for lights that will remain under federal control and be federal property—and hopefully will remain federal lighthouses, as navigational aids—and we will have lights that will be facing a regular divestiture anyway, opening the process for community groups to take responsibility for those lights.

I represent a big fishery riding, South Shore—St. Margaret's in Nova Scotia, with West Nova right next to it. I was on probably a dozen wharfs last Friday, Saturday, and Sunday morning, and the thing I noticed on each wharf was that you could see a lighthouse somewhere in that harbour from it—or from the majority of them. But even so, some of those lights are navigational aids, and some of those lights have already been divested without any assistance from community groups.

My concern is that if we don't get this bill passed this time.... I think it's in a good format, a workable format. And I think that with the petition process, we will have enough dollars to cover it—and all of those dollars won't be coming from DFO, because this has to go through Environment Canada and, of course, through Parks Canada.

I'm not sure of the number, but I believe that in the riding I represent, there are between 13 and 16 working lights now. There used to be over 20. Some of them have been torn down and burned; they just no longer meet a need of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or the Canadian Coast Guard. Some of them are no longer navigational aids. There are a number that have been divested since I became a member of Parliament—and the community groups then didn't have the clear guidelines to go by that we have here today. In one particular case, a lighthouse has been rebuilt by a community group; it had been gone for years and has been completely rebuilt as a tourist attraction. Although a number of our lights are on islands, a number of others you can actually drive to in Nova Scotia. Those have much more potential to be maintained by a community group.

If you could, I'd like you to go into the national historic sites. You folks talked about the importance of them a little bit, but the example you used was of your funding. I believe there is funding available to this bill; but either way, this government, or any government, simply controls the funding by the amount they put out as expenditure. I'd like to further explore that a little more.

Does anyone have a comment on that? I mean, it would be nice to have all the funding you could use, but—

[Robert Square]

Yes, in a perfect world, having a bottomless pit of money would be great.