Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 106-120 of 186
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Fisheries committee  Well, it's on a case-by-case basis. First of all—

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge

Fisheries committee  In that regard, we're able to find the resources to address the urgent health and safety issues, because we're not going to allow a light station or part of it to fall down and be a hazard to citizens. We do maintain those that are in poor shape or could be a health and safety ha

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge

Fisheries committee  That's correct.

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge

Fisheries committee  In fact, we have some examples we could give you where that's exactly what's happening, where we have divested into community interests. They in fact are doing some of this as a revenue-generating way, I guess, of being able to maintain the property for other purposes. So there's

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge

Fisheries committee  We have roughly 50 or 51 manned light stations. I think it's 27 in the Pacific, 23 in Newfoundland and Labrador, and one in New Brunswick, Machias Seal Island. Of those 51, we have no immediate plans to de-staff them and to divest of those.

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge

Fisheries committee  We can provide that breakdown by province or region of the country, if you like. I don't think we have the information readily available right at this time. I don't know whether 50 sounds right for Pacific or not.

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge

Fisheries committee  I am not quite sure how to answer your question, Mr. Asselin. As I stated earlier, our department will support the objective of the bill. The problem is simply that we do not have enough resources to implement the measures that this legislation will require. If Parliament adopt

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge

Fisheries committee  I am unable to give you an answer at the moment because we do not yet know exactly what the enacted legislation would entail. I provided two examples of the type of funding we would require, but it will depend on the exact content of the final version, as if I am not mistaken, Pa

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge

Fisheries committee  If we have contaminated lighthouses, we will be eligible to benefit from the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan. It provides funding to address matters such as, for example, contaminated lighthouses. I do not know exactly how many lighthouses are affected.

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge

Fisheries committee  Yes, that would be no problem.

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge

Fisheries committee  As you have alluded to, it's a bit of a challenge in terms of definition, but we use the figure generally of about 750 lighthouse-like structures, and within that there are about 250--give or take--that are what we would call major lights, and then another 500 or so smaller struc

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge

Fisheries committee  That's correct, yes.

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge

Fisheries committee  What I'm saying, Mr. Simms, is that if the bill is passed, in whatever form it's passed, we would have to seek additional funding in order to meet our obligations.

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge

Fisheries committee  I would prefer to stay away from any questions on amendments per se. I don't know if my colleagues from Parks Canada want to address anything on it, but I'm not really in a position to comment on amendments. I think it's in the hands of the politicians to decide what they want to

June 19th, 2007Committee meeting

Cal Hegge