Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 3 - Evidence - April 27, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:03 p.m. to examine issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans (topic: Canadian lighthouses).
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, let us introduce ourselves. My name is Bill Rompkey, and I am the Chair of the Standing Senator Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Senator MacDonald: I am Senator Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia.
Senator Manning: I am Senator Fabian Manning from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Patterson: I am Senator Dennis Patterson from Nunavut.
Senator Murray: I am Senator Lowell Murray from Ontario. I am not a member of this committee, but I am here because I am interested in the subject matter under discussion.
Senator Hubley: I am Senator Elizabeth Hubley from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Raine: I am Senator Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator Cochrane: I am Senator Ethel Cochrane from Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Rose-May Poirier has joined us. She is from New Brunswick. We represent a good cross-section of the country.
We are embarking on a study of lighthouses in Canada upon a request from the minister. We have written our terms of reference, which I reviewed at the last meeting. They are on record.
We have only just begun our deliberations. We heard from the minister and from the Canadian Coast Guard. We are pleased to hear from Parks Canada this evening. It is our intention to travel to various parts of country as soon as the budget is approved. Meantime, we will hear testimony in Ottawa on the questions of automation, staffing, the heritage value of lighthouses, their importance to people and their contribution to the economy through tourism. It is a wide-ranging study. We will come to conclusions and make a report thereafter.
I am pleased to welcome officials from Parks Canada
Larry Ostola, Director General, National Historic Sites, Parks Canada: Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear before you this evening. It is a pleasure for all of us to be here.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for the opportunity to both explain Parks Canada's role in the implementation of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act and to address the process we have developed under the legislation for the nomination, heritage valuation and designation of heritage lighthouses.
[English]
I would like to speak first to the presentation we have assembled for you. I believe you have copies of the presentation. Then we would be pleased to answer any questions to the best of our ability. We will certainly get information to you subsequently for any responses that we cannot provide.
Please note that we have provided a key document concerning the implementation of the act, namely, the approved designation criteria for heritage lighthouses. Our presentation begins with an outline of Parks Canada's mandate and explains why Parks Canada was selected to administer the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. The second part of the presentation describes essential processes related to designation of heritage lighthouses.
Parks Canada's mandate is as follows:
On behalf of the people of Canada, we protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage and foster public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment in ways that ensure their ecological and commemorative integrity for present and future generations.
Among the heritage places we own and administer on behalf of Canadians are 167 national historic sites in every province and territory, 42 national parks and three national marine conservation areas. In addition to these special places, Parks Canada also administers other programs, including the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office. We also provide secretariat support for the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.
Given these roles and the significant expertise possessed by Parks Canada in terms of heritage conservation, Parks Canada was assigned responsibility for implementation of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act.
[Translation]
The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act will come into force on May 29, 2010 and will apply to lighthouses that are the property of the Government of Canada.
As you are aware, the legislation was a Senate initiative. The Act is designed to ensure the conservation and protection of lighthouses designated as heritage sites under the Act. The legislation achieves this goal in four ways. Firstly, the Act provides for a process for the designation of heritage lighthouses. I will talk about this process in more detail in a moment.
Secondly, the act requires that public consultation occur before heritage lighthouses are sold, except in cases where the lighthouse is to be used for public purposes. This requirement ensures that the public is informed of the sale.
Thirdly, the act requires that lighthouses be reasonably maintained and that any alterations comply with national and international conservation standards.
Finally, the act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses, particularly to ensure an on-going public purpose for them.
[English]
Moving to the next slide, as you know, the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act envisions important roles for the residents of Canada in identifying and protecting lighthouses with significant heritage value. The primary means for nominating a lighthouse for designation under the act is by way of a petition that must be signed by at least 25 residents of Canada who are 18 years of age or older. Petitions must be received by Parks Canada during the two-year nomination period established by the act, which begins when the act comes into force on May 29, 2010, roughly five weeks from now, and concludes on May 29, 2012, in other words, after two years' time.
Parks Canada has developed some tools to help Canadians nominate the lighthouses that they feel are worthy of designation. Our website was launched in the fall, and staff are finalizing a nomination package that will contain essential information, instructions and a basic petition template.
When Parks Canada receives a valid petition, we will acknowledge the receipt of that petition and advise the petitioner of the next steps in the process. It will be important to ensure that petitioners are aware of the provisions in the act that pertain to surplus lighthouses, namely that a minister cannot designate unless a person or body has submitted a written commitment to buy or otherwise acquire the heritage lighthouse and to protect its heritage character.
As for the actual heritage valuation process, lighthouse reports will be prepared to inform the deliberations of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. The board was appointed as the minister's advisory committee for heritage lighthouses in April of 2009. When reports are ready, they will also be submitted to a heritage lighthouses consultative group, appointed by the minister in summer 2009 to advise the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada in its role as the minister's advisory committee. The consultative group will provide advice and support to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, which will then be charged with the responsibility of making recommendations to the minister.
The Historic Sites and Monuments Board will evaluate the nominated lighthouse against the designation criteria and will consider the advice submitted by the consultative group. Historic Sites and Monuments Board recommendations, which may be positive or negative, will then be transmitted to the minister. The decision to designate or not belongs to the minister, and the minister determines whether or not the lighthouse satisfies the criteria for the designation of heritage lighthouses.
There are two possible scenarios for designation. As you are aware, Fisheries and Oceans Canada will publish shortly, as is required under the act, a list of lighthouses surplus to its operations. If the petitioned lighthouse is not surplus to operations, in other words, if it remains within the federal inventory, the minister will determine whether or not to designate that lighthouse a heritage lighthouse for the purposes of the act.
In dealing with a lighthouse declared surplus to government operations, the minister may only designate that lighthouse as a heritage lighthouse if a person or body submits a written commitment to buy or otherwise acquire the lighthouse and to protect its heritage character.
In this scenario, Parks Canada will inform the Fisheries and Oceans Canada of any petitions for surplus lighthouses that meet the criteria and that have been recommended. Fisheries and Oceans Canada would then inform Parks Canada when it obtained a satisfactory written commitment to acquire and to protect, as required under the act, so that our minister can proceed with the designation.
It is important to underline that this must take place before May 29, 2015, the last date for making all designations under the act. In all cases, the minister's decision will be communicated to the petitioner.
I will turn now to the next slide, the page entitled "Criteria for Heritage Lighthouses."
In January of this year, the minister approved the designation criteria for heritage lighthouses. There are six criteria grouped into three themes: historical values, architectural values and community values. These designation criteria are rooted in the heritage evaluation criteria developed to evaluate potential federal heritage buildings, as well as lighthouse evaluation guidelines previously developed by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.
The consultative group I mentioned earlier, which works with the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, also influenced and endorsed the final version, as did the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, before a recommendation was made to the minister. As I noted at the beginning of the presentation, we have supplied the committee with the complete version of the criteria, which includes explanatory notes for each criterion.
Moving now to the next slide, which is entitled "Parks Canada Heritage Lighthouse Program," senators may wish to know a little bit about the Heritage Lighthouse Program office and its role. As I mentioned earlier, Parks Canada is responsible for the implementation of the act, and most of the related responsibilities will be realized through the Heritage Lighthouse Program office.
The program office has two broad functions. The first I might call a secretariat function. Staff serving this secretariat function will process petitions and keep petitioners informed on the progress of their files. They will continue to liaise with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. They will facilitate meetings of the consultative group and help the group bring its views and recommendations to the attention of the board. Finally, they will also assist the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada secretariat, which is also part of Parks Canada, to bring the board's recommendations to the attention of the minister as they relate to the Heritage Lighthouse Program.
The second broad function of the program involves supporting the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and the minister with appropriate historical research materials upon which to base their decisions. The research carried out in support of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board and the minister will include consultation with communities to ensure that the local perspective on the historical and present day importance of a lighthouse to the community is clearly understood.
I will move to the final slide in the presentation.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I would like to address the important milestones set out in the act.
[English]
I would like to turn now to some of the important milestones related to the act. On May 29, 2008, almost two years ago, the bill received Royal Assent. On May 10, 2010, in a few weeks' time, the act comes into force and petitioning begins. Two years later, on May 29, 2012, the petitioning period concludes. Finally, August 25, 2015, as required by the act, is the last date to publish in the Canada Gazette a complete list of lighthouses that have been considered.
With that, I would like to thank all of you very much for the opportunity to present Parks Canada's role in the implementation of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, including the nomination and designation processes elaborated, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
Senator Poy: Thank you very much for your presentation. You spoke about sale of lighthouses. Can a private person purchase a lighthouse?
Mr. Ostola: Under the provisions of the act, members of the public can submit petitions to have lighthouses designated as heritage lighthouses. Two streams can be followed. There are lighthouses that will remain in the federal inventory. As I said, the appropriate research would be conducted. The petition and the research would be evaluated by the consultative group of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, and a recommendation would be made to the minister either recommending designation or not, and then a decision would be made.
In the second scenario, a list of surplus lighthouses will be produced by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The public will have an opportunity to petition for those lighthouses to be designated as heritage lighthouses as well. However, for a designation to be made, a group would have to indicate that it was prepared to take over responsibility for the lighthouse and to look after its long-term protection.
If no group was prepared to assume responsibility for a lighthouse, the designation would not be made and the regular policy for the disposal of federal assets would apply. At that point, other means of disposal could be explored.
Senator Poy: Under those circumstances, a private person could purchase a lighthouse and turn it into a tourist attraction?
Mr. Ostola: Under normal disposal processes, it is my understanding that a private person could potentially do that.
Senator Poy: If a group says it will assume responsibility for looking after the lighthouse, how can Parks Canada be sure that that commitment will continue? What guarantee do you have that the group will be able to look after the lighthouse and keep its historic characteristics?
Mr. Ostola: Once again, we are referring to lighthouses that will be determined to be surplus to requirements of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Before a designation can be made, the department will have to enter into communication and negotiations with the community group to develop something like a business case that will address exactly those issues — what the plan is for the future and what protections could be put in place in that jurisdiction to ensure the long- term protection of the lighthouse. That would be part of the negotiation between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the community group in question.
Senator Poy: Must a group establish a foundation and have a certain amount of funding in order to prove its case?
Mr. Ostola: There is no requirement under the act for a foundation or a mechanism like that to be established before entering into discussions.
Senator Poy: Is the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada part of Parks Canada?
Mr. Ostola: The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada was established in 1919 to provide advice to the minister on persons, places and events of national historic significance. I am sure you have seen the bronze plaques that are put up throughout the country. Those plaques represent persons, places and events of national historic significance and are erected on the recommendation of the board, assuming the minister's approval. Parks Canada has a small secretariat that actively supports the work of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. For example, we have historians who carry out research projects that help the board arrive at recommendations to make to the minister. Parks Canada plays a supporting role in close collaboration with the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, and I have the honour to serve as the secretary of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for the presentation. You said that the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act will come into force on May 29, 2010. How will the communities be made aware of this? I am sure that not everyone follows the legislation and knows exactly when these things will happen. How do you ensure that the communities are aware this will be available and this is the time to act?
Mr. Ostola: Since the development of this legislation, there has been intense interest by many coastal and other communities in the future of lighthouses. Therefore, there is already some awareness, but we are taking concrete measures to make people aware. Last fall we launched a website connected to Parks Canada's public website where the public can get basic information regarding the act. There is a phone number people can call for further information. We are also producing a brochure that will provide information to the public. Finally, as I said in my presentation, we have a consultative group made up of representatives from different parts of Canada; the group's members represent the grassroots interest in lighthouses, and they have indicated their clear intention to help us get the word out as well. Those are some of the means we are using to make the public aware of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act.
Senator Poirier: What will happen if two groups want one lighthouse?
Mr. Ostola: That is an interesting question, and clearly that could happen. of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which I assume would be dealing with the petitioners at the local level, might find a way to reconcile the interest of the groups indicating an interest in the lighthouse or might institute some other process to evaluate the petitions submitted.
Senator Poirier: At the end of the day, is the final decision made by a committee or by the minister?
Mr. Ostola: The decision would be made by Fisheries and Oceans Canada on the basis of the petitions, because the department would negotiate the business cases regarding the future of the lighthouses.
Senator Poirier: What will happen to a surplus lighthouse for which no one petitions?
Mr. Ostola: I referred briefly to the list of surplus lighthouses earlier. If no one makes a petition, no designation can take place, and the lighthouse will not become a heritage lighthouse. At that point, normal policies with respect to federal real property would apply in terms of disposal or other uses by the department.
Senator Poirier: When people petition successfully for a lighthouse, can they apply for funding to assist them, or are they totally on their own?
Mr. Ostola: Parks Canada has no funding programs that can provide assistance to community groups assuming responsibility for lighthouses.
Senator Poirier: What is the National Historic Sites of Canada Cost-Sharing Program?
Mr. Ostola: The National Historic Sites of Canada Cost-Sharing Program was created to help non-federal owners of national historic sites conserve the physical fabric of their national historic sites. For example, a national historic site that has a problem with its roof or needs its brick or stone repointed is eligible to apply to the National Historic Sites of Canada Cost-Sharing Program for funding to help with its physical rehabilitation on a cost-shared basis only. While the federal government, Parks Canada in this case, could contribute some money, the people responsible for the national historic site in that context would have to put up the other part of the money required for the considered repairs.
Senator Poirier: A few minutes ago you said there is no funding program, but now you are saying there is a cost- sharing program for funding. Are there two different branches of a department involved?
Mr. Ostola: No. The National Historic Sites of Canada Cost-Sharing Program is run within Parks Canada, and I am responsible for it. The Heritage Lighthouse Program is also run within Parks Canada under my responsibility. To give you a practical example, there could be a lighthouse that people in a community are very interested in, although it is not a national historic site and would therefore not be eligible for funding under the National Historic Sites of Canada Cost-Sharing Program. That is the distinction. Very few lighthouses are designated national historic sites.
Senator Poirier: If they are national historic sites, they can qualify for cost-sharing funding.
Mr. Ostola: Potentially they can if they are able to meet the funding criteria.
The Chair: You have explained the cost-sharing program, but do other federal departments have similar programs? I understand the Department of National Defence has a program for funding national historic sites that it disposes of. Do you know whether any other federal departments have similar programs?
Mr. Ostola: I honestly cannot say that I know. I am not aware of other federal funding programs that might be useful in the situation we have been talking about. I am not familiar with the program at the Department of National Defence.
The Chair: You know of no other federal department that has a program for funding heritage sites.
Mr. Ostola: No.
The Chair: Senators, perhaps the committee's researcher could find the answer to that question. I am getting at a government-wide program that operates for heritage properties. If one department has a program and another department has a program, perhaps we could find a way to consolidate. Perhaps our researcher could look into that and report back to the committee.
Senator MacDonald: Senator Poirier asked many questions that I was concerned about. Following that theme, a petition is needed for a lighthouse to be designated heritage. However, if the proposal for ownership is not accepted, would the petition be a sufficient basis to designate a site as heritage if there is no one to take it over?
Mr. Ostola: In response to your question, I would talk about the two streams. First, if a lighthouse remains within the federal inventory and a petition is submitted, the appropriate research and evaluation processes are done, after which a recommendation is made to the minister. When there is concurrence, the lighthouse could be designated as heritage.
The second scenario involves a surplus lighthouse. A petition could be submitted, but the only way a designation could be carried out is if a group steps forward and commits to take on the responsibility for the surplus lighthouse and look after its heritage value. Unless that happens, the designation cannot take place.
Senator MacDonald: There is no program funding available to Parks Canada for these heritage lighthouses. Is that correct?
Mr. Ostola: Parks Canada is funding its activities related to the program from its current resources.
Senator MacDonald: Do you think there is any window of opportunity within Parks Canada to secure base funding for these lighthouses?
Mr. Ostola: Parks Canada's resources are clearly focused on its portfolio of places that it administers. Parks Canada has neither a funding program nor funds available for the purpose you describe.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You said few lighthouses are designated national historic sites. How many are there?
Mr. Ostola: If I may, it will take a moment.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Are there 10 or 20 or 100?
Norman Shields, Manager, Heritage Lighthouse Program, Policy Branch, National Historic Sites, Parks Canada: Over time, 14 lighthouses have been designated national historic sites across the country.
Senator Nancy Ruth: How many of these have interpretation centres?
Mr. Ostola: That is a difficult question to which we cannot give a precise answer. I can tell you that at least two of those 14 national historic sites administered by Parks Canada have interpretive programs. However, I could not speak for the others designated across the country.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Where I am going with this question is the role of women and families in lighthouses. I would like to know whether any of the interpretation centres include the lives of the families that lived in the lighthouses. In your communications material, are there details of gender and age unique to that environment? What is Parks Canada doing about commemorating women's work in this country?
Mr. Ostola: The two sites I mentioned where we have interpretive programs are Cape Spear Lighthouse National Historic Site in Newfoundland and Labrador and Fisgard Lighthouse National Historic Site in British Columbia. We speak about the reality of lightkeeping and lightkeepers' families. Obviously, women are an important part of that story and are one aspect of the interpretation. I cannot speak to the other designated sites because I do not know what they do.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Is your policy such that when interpretation is done, it includes the life of the family?
Mr. Ostola: We try to provide the best and most complete interpretation possible to the public. Clearly, when important elements of a story allow Canadians to make personal connections to these incredible places, then we include them.
Senator Raine: We are just getting started on the study, so this is very helpful to us. I am a little confused. The national heritage lighthouses will not be part of the inventory of Parks Canada in the end.
You have a list of 167 national historic sites, of which 14 are lighthouses, and there are 42 national parks and 3 national marine conservation areas.
Mr. Ostola: That is correct.
Senator Raine: There will not be another line item saying X number of heritage lighthouses.
Mr. Ostola: No. The act identifies a number of clear obligations for the Minister responsible for Parks Canada. As you pointed out, Parks Canada currently administers 15 lighthouses that are used for various program requirements, including visitor facilities. There are no outstanding program requirements that would lead us to acquire further lighthouses. As I mentioned earlier, we are clearly focused on managing our current portfolio of resources and places, so there are no plans to acquire lighthouses.
While we do not have any program requirements for lighthouses, I believe coastal communities in some areas have expressed a desire to put these places to different types of uses. That is one aspect the act was designed to support.
Senator Raine: You talked about the two streams, with one stream being lighthouses that will remain in the federal inventory. What will they be doing in the federal inventory? I do not understand that stream.
Mr. Ostola: Perhaps I will give you an example from our own inventory. Earlier, I mentioned Cape Spear Lighthouse National Historic Site. It is a designated national historic site and has been for some time. There is a possibility that members of the public might wish to submit a petition to have Cape Spear designated as a heritage lighthouse. Assuming the recommendation was favourable, Cape Spear would continue to be a national historic site but would also have a designation as a heritage lighthouse. In a practical sense, that would not change the way we manage the site now. We would continue to manage it as a national historic site and respect its heritage values. That is one example.
Senator Raine: Really we are talking about the 14 lighthouses already declared national historic sites. Do you envision that more will stay in the federal government stream?
Mr. Ostola: I cannot speak on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, but it is possible that department might identify some lighthouses it wishes to keep within its inventory.
Senator Raine: There is a two-year timeline for the petitioning to become a national heritage lighthouse. I would presume there would be a list of surplus lighthouses in that other stream. Does that exist already?
Mr. Ostola: I believe it is being developed right now by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. However, people there would be best placed to tell you what stage they are at in develop the list.
Senator Murray: Thank you again, Mr. Chair. As a non-member of the committee, I appreciate your courtesy.
Mr. Ostola, I note that the act to protect heritage lighthouses comes into force on May 29, two years to the day since it received royal assent. During that two-year interim, I presume you have been gearing up to be ready to do everything that has to be done with regard to considering petitions and designating lighthouses, et cetera. Are you completely ready?
Mr. Ostola: I would say that we are in a very good state of readiness to implement the provisions of the act when it comes into force. Over the course of the last 24 months, a number of important milestones have been achieved: The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada was named as the minister's advisory committee for the implementation of the act; a consultative group representing grassroots groups was created; and designation criteria for heritage lighthouses have been approved by the minister.
Senator Murray: Where are they, Mr. Ostola?
Mr. Ostola: I believe we have distributed copies here this evening.
Senator Murray: I think that would be helpful if we had copies.
Mr. Ostola: We have developed designation criteria. We have launched a public website, and have undertaken the development of other communications products that I mentioned earlier. We will soon have ready a proposal related to criteria for the alteration and maintenance of heritage lighthouses.
Also, a nomination package was developed; if members of the public are interested in submitting petitions, they will have online guidance via an electronic nomination package that will allow them to submit a petition. That would be another milestone I would point to.
Senator Murray: That seems to cover it. I have the act before me now, and I have made check marks beside those matters I was thinking of asking you about, but I will not do so now since you have volunteered the information.
Section 8(1) of the act states:
For two years beginning with the coming into force of this Act, every Minister of the Crown in right of Canada who has the administration of lighthouses must maintain and make available to the public a list of those lighthouses that he or she considers to be surplus to the operational requirements. . . .
That suggests that it is kind of a moveable feast. One assumes that you, he and they will be adding to that list as time goes by. However, after two years, that is it; nothing will be added or subtracted from the list. Do I understand the provision correctly?
Mr. Ostola: There is a requirement to make a list of surplus lighthouses available. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that such a list is in preparation or perhaps nearing completion.
Senator Murray: When the minister was here, she said late May or early June for the list. I presume there will be other lists over the next two years.
You have made the point that someone must undertake to buy or acquire the lighthouse in question in order for the minister to designate it as a heritage lighthouse. After the first list is published in May or June, how long will people have to make their petitions?
Mr. Ostola: From the time the act comes into force on May 29, there is a two-year period during which interested members of the public can submit petitions. That takes us to May 29, 2012. It is essentially a two-year window during which petitions could actually be submitted.
Senator Murray: For two years, beginning with the coming into force of this act, the minister is required to receive petitions. If another list comes out a year from now of lighthouses that are deemed by the minister to be surplus to operational requirements, I presume people have two years from that date to put in a petition.
There is no point in putting forward a petition if a lighthouse is not on a list in late May or early June when the first list comes out.
Mr. Shields: To offer a clarification, the petition is to nominate the lighthouse for designation. The petition applies to any lighthouse, whether it is surplus or not. This is the mechanism by which members of the public will signal to the minister that they would like the minister to consider this lighthouse for designation.
The act clearly establishes a two-year period for the petitioning, and it cannot be extended beyond that.
Senator Murray: There has been some discussion at the committee today of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, of which you, Mr. Ostola, are the secretary. I also have a reference to the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, I think, which I picked out of the earlier transcripts. Does that sound about right? Is that under the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada? If not, where is it?
Mr. Ostola: It is not under the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. The Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, which was created to help federal custodians appropriately manage the heritage values of their built assets, is under Parks Canada. In fact, it is under my responsibility. That office is intended to support federal heritage buildings and some lighthouses.
Senator Murray: That is what I am getting at. Perhaps I missed this, but before this act on heritage lighthouses came in, you had the authority, under whatever various statutes, to designate a lighthouse as a historic site monument, a heritage building or whatever, did you not?
Mr. Ostola: There are lighthouses that have designations as federal heritage buildings. However, the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office and its activities fall under Treasury Board policy on management of real property. Therefore, it is a policy and not a piece of legislation. I also mentioned that there are lighthouses designated as federal heritage buildings.
Senator Murray: From whom?
Mr. Ostola: From the Government of Canada.
Senator Murray: Is this designation under the authority of the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office?
Mr. Ostola: That is correct.
Senator Murray: Does this act trump the earlier authority, or can the Treasury Board's Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office continue to make designations irrespective of this act?
Mr. Ostola: The activities of the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office will continue.
Senator Murray: Even in respect to lighthouses?
Mr. Ostola: That is correct.
Senator Murray: Is there a process under which someone can petition the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office? I did not know it existed until this evening, and I have been here for 30 years. Many things exist that I do not know about; it is a big government.
The Chair: I think you opened up the potential for another witness.
Senator Murray: Is there a way for an ordinary citizen to contact the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office?
Mr. Ostola: Designation is not through a petition process. Treasury Board policy on management of real property requires that the heritage character of federal buildings is managed throughout their life cycle. The policy states that departments must ensure buildings 40 years of age or older are submitted to Parks Canada's Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office for review. An assessment is then carried out to determine their actual heritage value. In some cases, buildings have no heritage value, and in some cases they do.
Activities of the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office will continue to be carried out within the context of the act.
Senator Murray: Thank you; that is helpful.
There have been more than a few sad situations in the past of which I am aware where government decided a lighthouse with iconic status locally was surplus to their requirements. The first thing we knew, people we considered to be government vandals swooped in and burned the lighthouse along with the house in which the lighthouse keepers were living. This is an awful action, and it was not appreciated.
There have also been situations, on which Senator MacDonald and I are now working, where lighthouses have been moved to become an ornament on a government wharf somewhere. In some cases, local people came together to organize for the return of their lighthouse to the area it had originally been located in.
We are working now on a case where the Canadian Coast Guard in Halifax has taken a lighthouse from the northern coast of Cape Breton. I took pictures that show it is surrounded by dumpsters on their site and not accessible to the public. I stood outside the gate to take the photographs. The Coast Guard is resisting action because it is moving to the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, and it wants to take this lawn ornament with along. Cape Bretoners want it returned to them.
I do not expect you to offer an opinion or to get it moved. I simply state for the record that while the minister has accepted the advice of her officials at the Coast Guard, I hope, as a Prince Edward Islander who has appreciation for these matters, that she will relent.
Senator Hubley: We must understand how important a lighthouse is to rural communities. Prince Edward Island is an island surrounded by water. We have many lighthouses, although we are a small province.
I have two problems when I consider the situation on Prince Edward Island. I have a problem with the two-year time period allowed for the nomination process, but my larger concern is about the 25 petitioners who must sign the nomination. Each of our Maritime provinces — New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador — has lighthouse societies.
What was the consultation process in speaking to these lighthouse societies that are intimately involved in the preservation and know the history of the lighthouses?
Mr. Ostola: I appreciate the concern you express about the importance of lighthouses to local communities. We tried to capture that aspect in the designation criteria we developed. Consideration would not be limited to the historical or architectural importance of the lighthouse but would capture those important community values. That is one designation criteria.
To answer your question, I mentioned earlier some communications products that we have developed. We hope to do outreach with the help of the consultative group to ensure that organizations like the one you referred to on Prince Edward Island are aware of the act and the time frame within which petitions must be submitted regarding specific lighthouses where the groups are located. We make the effort to ensure the message gets out and that people hear it.
Senator Hubley: That is good. Can a lighthouse society petition on behalf of lighthouses in a province?
Mr. Ostola: I understand that a blanket petition could not be submitted for all lighthouses; rather a petition is needed for each lighthouse to be considered a heritage lighthouse.
The Chair: The 25 signatures required on the petition do not need to come from the local area. Could they come from a provincial lighthouse association?
Mr. Ostola: The requirement is 25 citizens, aged 18 or over, who wish to submit a petition for a given lighthouse — not for all lighthouses in an area.
The Chair: One provincial organization could do that for a specific lighthouse.
Mr. Ostola: Yes.
Senator Hubley: I still have difficulty with 25 names being required. Could one lighthouse society submit 10 petitions for 10 lighthouses they have identified as important in their particular province, or are they limited to one petition?
Mr. Ostola: I can get clarification, but my understanding is that there is no reason 25 citizens aged 18 and over cannot submit a petition for one given lighthouse or another given lighthouse.
Senator Hubley: My concern is that there may not be 25 members in a lighthouse society. Twenty-five people are a lot of people on Prince Edward Island. I belong to many organizations.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It is easier to win a nomination.
Senator Hubley: We will not go there.
Indeed, the value of the lighthouses is appreciated. Is it okay for the same 25 members of a lighthouse society to submit petitions for several lighthouses?
Mr. Ostola: The petition would be presented individually for each lighthouse?
Senator Hubley: That seems to be the criteria.
Mr. Ostola: I do not want to leave the impression that the petitioners must be members of a lighthouse or heritage preservation society. Any interested citizens can sign a petition.
The Chair: Citizens of the province or of Canada?
Mr. Ostola: Yes, citizens of Canada.
The Chair: Do they have to be residents?
Mr. Ostola: Not of a given province.
The Chair: Any 25 citizens of Canada?
Mr. Ostola: That is correct.
The Chair: Someone in British Columbia may sign a petition for a lighthouse in Prince Edward Island?
Mr. Ostola: Yes. That is my understanding.
Senator Poirier: Senator Hubley talked about a lighthouse society. Those who sign the petition do not have to be 25 members of a lighthouse society. If I understand correctly, the lighthouse society can go out to a community and recruit people to sign. Is that right?
Mr. Ostola: Your understanding is correct.
The Chair: You are on to a good line of questioning.
Senator Cochrane: Thank you very much for appearing. In regard to Canadian lighthouses, what role is there for DFO?
Mr. Ostola: Under the provisions of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is to develop a list of surplus lighthouses. Again, I want to make it clear that I cannot speak on behalf of the department. As I mentioned earlier, Fisheries and Oceans Canada will be responsible for that list of heritage lighthouses and would do the active negotiation with community groups that might be interested in taking on those lighthouses. That would be one of the primary roles that department would play.
Senator Cochrane: Who are the eligible recipients? What types of projects are available for funding, if any? I am referring to recipients who would want to take over these lighthouses. They are Canadians, groups probably, but is there any available funding? Usually when there is a government initiative like this, some funding is available. Is there any?
Mr. Ostola: I am not aware of any funding programs that community groups could access for the purposes of taking on a lighthouse.
Senator Cochrane: Do you know of any other projects within that same idea that would provide funding? Is there anything that people could latch on to?
Mr. Ostola: Not that I am aware of.
Senator Cochrane: I have just visited Cape Spear. As you told us, that is a Canadian historic site, and a beautiful one, I might add. Who will be responsible for the roads going to the site? I travelled over that road recently. If that site is privatized, who will be responsible for the highway going up to that site?
Mr. Ostola: To be clear, Cape Spear is a national historic site that is managed by Parks Canada. There are no plans to privatize Cape Spear.
Senator Cochrane: Let us say it is another site. I am sure there are roads going up to those sites as well, and they will be privatized. Who will be responsible for that? The road is open to anyone. Let us say it is two, three, or four miles before you get to the site. If people are going to buy a site like that, they need to have the highway maintained because that will encourage others to go up and see the site. Who will be responsible?
Mr. Ostola: I honestly do not know that there is an easy answer to your question, senator, because there are probably many different situations right across the country depending on which lighthouse we are talking about.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Could I follow up on that? I want to answer the question by saying the province is responsible for the roads. However, are some lighthouses in national parks territory? What arrangement do you have for roads if the lighthouse is in a national park?
Mr. Ostola: As I mentioned earlier, Parks Canada does have a number of lighthouses within its portfolio, some of which are national historic sites. We manage those in the context of the properties we manage.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Does that include the road access?
Mr. Ostola: Correct.
Senator Nancy Ruth: There is a cut-off, and the responsibility changes.
Senator Patterson: I want to understand what will happen in this period between May 29, 2010, when the act comes into force, and May 29, 2012, when it will no longer be possible to petition for declaration of a heritage lighthouse. The first thing that has to happen is there must be a list of surplus lighthouses made available, because that is one way in which a heritage lighthouse can be created; right?
Mr. Ostola: Yes.
Senator Patterson: When do you anticipate that list being developed and released?
Mr. Ostola: As I understand it, that list is being developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I am afraid I cannot give you an exact date for when it will be released. I do not know.
Senator Patterson: I am a little puzzled. The list should be made available by federal custodians — I think that is what they are called in the act — in that two-year window between May 29, 2010, and May 29, 2012. It is that same two-year window that has been allowed for petitions. One would hope that the list of surplus lighthouses would be made available early in the process to give time for petitions to be filed within the deadline.
Mr. Ostola: Yes.
Senator Patterson: I am thinking out loud here, and not for a minute to judge the result of our committee's work, Mr. Chair. Our committee will be looking at the special situation of about 50 lighthouses that are staffed, roughly half on each coast. I am thinking of the possibility that we might determine that a lighthouse has heritage or tourist value and might recommend to the minister that it be declared surplus. As I say, I am not prejudging anything we are going to do, but if that should happen, it should happen early in the two-year process, because of course if we do recommend and the minister agrees that a lighthouse should be declared surplus, we would hope that there would be time for a petition so that it could be properly looked after by a citizens group. There may be some time pressures here. I noted a nod there.
Perhaps not directly related to this, but Parks Canada is in charge of historic sites and monuments. Mr. Ostola, you mentioned historic sites in your presentation, but you did not mention monuments. Are there any historic sites and monuments that have a marine character to them right now? Are there any lighthouses in the inventory of historic sites and monuments that you have now?
Mr. Ostola: A number of designated national historic sites across Canada are marine-related. I can give you a couple of examples if that would be helpful. One quite prominent national historic site is HCMS Haida, a Second World War warship, located on the Hamilton waterfront. Other examples are the Hamilton and the Scourge on Lake Ontario, two vessels that sank during the War of 1812. As I said earlier, some lighthouses have also been designated as National Historic Sites, so there is clearly a marine tie-in there. Another Parks Canada site is the Gulf of Georgia Cannery National Historic Site located in Steveston, British Columbia. It tells the story of the West Coast salmon fishing industry and reflects our maritime history. Those are a number of examples of the way in which marine history has been commemorated, and there are others as well.
Senator Patterson: After this new legislation on heritage lighthouses comes into effect and is active for a period, will it still be possible to have lighthouses fall under your authority through the Historic Sites and Monuments Board?
Mr. Ostola: It will be possible for lighthouses to continue to be considered for designation as national historic sites, but national historic sites are owned by provincial and municipal governments, private citizens and various groups across the country, so there will not necessarily be a single owner. They could be owned by many different institutions. However, the possibility to have lighthouses designated national historic sites on the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada would continue.
The Chair: This legislation has a sunset date, does it not?
Mr. Ostola: It does.
The Chair: All designations have to be made before that sunset date. If anything were to happen after that date, it would not come under the purview of this law; is that right?
Mr. Ostola: That is correct, because we are talking about two types of designations here.
The Chair: I understand that. I understood Mr. Shields to say that you can make an application for any lighthouse, whether it is designated by Fisheries and Oceans as surplus or whether it will eventually be designated as a heritage site. Is it correct that 25 people could apply for any lighthouse?
Mr. Ostola: That is correct.
The Chair: Any 25 citizens of Canada can at any time apply to take over any lighthouse, whether or not it is designated as a heritage site, but eventually it will have to be designated as surplus to Fisheries and Oceans Canada and designated as a heritage site by your department. Is that correct?
Mr. Ostola: In order to be designated as a heritage lighthouse, which is a specific type of designation under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, the time frames indicated in the act would have to be respected. There is a two-year petitioning period.
The Chair: For any lighthouse at all?
Mr. Ostola: Yes, for any lighthouse at all. The period comes to an end after two years, and then decisions are made no later than 2015, after which, according to the law, there is no further possibility of having a heritage lighthouse designation.
The Chair: I hope that we can make that process clear to people. They can apply for any lighthouse in Canada, and eventually it will go through the process of being declared surplus and being given a designation and so on.
Mr. Shields: To clarify, that is any lighthouse in Canada owned by the federal government.
The Chair: Yes. Is your website easily accessible? If I searched for "lighthouses," would it come up, or do I have to go through Parks Canada?
Mr. Ostola: The best way is to access it through the Parks Canada website.
The Chair: Some people may not know it is operated by Parks Canada. People in Fogo might want to find out if they can make a petition for their lighthouse, and they might not know that the process is operated by Parks Canada; they may just know that they want a lighthouse. If they search "lighthouse," will your site come up?
Mr. Ostola: I honestly do not know that it will, senator.
The Chair: If it does not, we may have a communications problem. We have had experience with complicated government sites. To get to the Senate, you used to have to go through the Parliament of Canada. Some people did not know that the Senate was part of the Parliament of Canada; they thought the Parliament of Canada was just the House of Commons. It is changed now, but initially you had to go through the Parliament of Canada site, which was complicated.
If this is going to be accessible by people, there must be a simple process whereby you just search "lighthouses" and the site comes up.
Senator Manning: I want some numbers on lighthouses versus light stations. It is my understanding that there is a difference. We have information that a couple of years ago there were 264 staffed lighthouses in Canada and today only 51 remain staffed. I know that your concern is not with staffing or de-staffing, but will the list of possible historic lighthouses come from that 264?
In some cases light stations may be de-staffed, but the Coast Guard will provide automated service there. At the same time, there could be a lighthouse on that particular site. Am I correct in saying that? How would it work if the lighthouse is de-staffed and they do not need the lighthouse itself? The fixed light may not be part of the lighthouse.
A lighthouse may be surplus to the department and given a heritage designation, but there may be a light station on that site. What happens in such cases?
Mr. Ostola: That is a hypothetical situation. Perhaps local or other citizens would be interested in submitting a petition for the historic lighthouse, the lighthouse that had heritage value and not so much a modern aid to navigation.
Senator Manning: It is possible there could be on one site a lighthouse that can be designated as a heritage site and a light station that would be operated under the Coast Guard?
Mr. Ostola: That may well be possible.
Senator Manning: I guess we have to wait and see.
Is there any review mechanism after the two-year period during which a lighthouse is turned over to an individual or group? If after a number of years the place is unkept and becomes an eyesore, is there a mechanism to take it back or to do something else with it, or does the government cut itself clear of it forever? I do not see a review mechanism in the act, and I am wondering whether I am missing something.
Mr. Ostola: That is correct. In the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act there is no provision for the type of review or follow-up that you are describing.
Senator Manning: Is that on purpose? I am surprised that there is no such provision. Is the plan simply for the government to rid itself of these lighthouses? Was there ever a discussion in your meetings about a review mechanism beyond the two years?
Mr. Ostola: Not in our meetings, certainly.
Senator Manning: I am surprised at that.
Further on designation of the lighthouses, on some sites there may be other buildings, such as a residence or storage facilities for public consumption. Under the act, other buildings on the site would be considered part of the heritage package. Is that correct?
Mr. Ostola: In certain circumstances, they could be considered part of the heritage lighthouse.
Senator Manning: Is there anything in the act that would prevent an individual or group from taking the lighthouse and turning it into a private business of some nature?
Mr. Ostola: In the case of a surplus lighthouse, if no community group came forward to assume responsibility, then, as I mentioned earlier, no designation would occur. At that point, normal disposal processes would apply. In that context, it is possible that a lighthouse could be acquired or purchased and used for any number of purposes.
Senator Raine: Could it be destroyed or moved? Has that ever happened?
Mr. Ostola: Normal disposal processes would apply, assuming that a lighthouse was not designated heritage.
Senator Manning: I read through the act. Concerns have been raised by some members this evening in relation to public knowledge. For clarification, before a lighthouse can be turned over to a community group, organization or individual, a public meeting would be held in the relevant community, region or area to explain what is happening with the lighthouse. Is that correct?
Mr. Ostola: You are referring to the part of the act that concerns heritage lighthouses in the federal inventory. We are talking about a lighthouse that continues to be the property of the federal government. At some point in the future, a department may say that although this lighthouse has been designated heritage, this department no longer requires the lighthouse for operational needs. At that point, before the lighthouse can be disposed of, a public meeting is required and announcements must be published in the local newspapers advising citizens of the fact.
Senator Manning: That would be after the fact of designation.
Mr. Ostola: Yes, that is correct for lighthouses that remain within the federal inventory.
Senator Manning: What happens to those that are not within the federal inventory? If the minister decides that an undesignated lighthouse that is not part of the inventory will be put for disposal, is there a public meeting about it?
Mr. Shields: To clarify, the public notice and the public meeting clauses apply to lighthouses that will be sold or transferred out of the federal inventory. At the risk of contradicting my superior, there is no distinction between that taking place two years from now or ten years from now. For a lighthouse that will be sold or transferred after designation, there will be a public notice and a public meeting. There is an exception to the public meeting. If the lighthouse is transferred to another order of government, there is no requirement for a public meeting.
The Chair: Senator Patterson had a supplementary on that point.
Senator Patterson: Yes. At section 16 of the act, there are provisions allowing the minister to establish criteria for the maintenance of heritage lighthouses that are in keeping with national and international standards for the conservation of heritage property. His concern was about it being altered. These criteria are not regulations. Is that correct? Are they considered policy? Would a regulatory power be associated with these criteria?
Mr. Ostola: Alteration and maintenance criteria fall under the act, and there would be an obligation to apply those criteria.
Senator Patterson: How would they be enforced?
Mr. Ostola: It would be the responsibility of the department in question to apply those criteria.
Senator Patterson: How would they apply those criteria?
Mr. Ostola: No lighthouses have been designated heritage to date, because the act has not come into force. Let us use the same example of Cape Spear. If a member of the public petitions to have it designated heritage and it receives designation, then Parks Canada would apply the alteration and maintenance standards to the required level to ensure that they are followed appropriately.
Senator Patterson: What enforcement mechanism would Parks Canada have to ensure that it is done appropriately?
Mr. Ostola: We would be required to do it.
The Chair: Are there regulations in support of the act? Most acts have regulations associated with them.
Mr. Ostola: I am not aware of the regulations under the act.
Senator Raine: I am starting to understand that there are two different pools, if you like. One pool includes those that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is keeping, which are not surplus, and the other pool is of those that Fisheries and Oceans Canada declares surplus to its needs. The public can petition both those groups to be designated heritage, and the public should not assume that the federal government will declare them heritage. If in this two-year period they do not get the heritage label and Fisheries and Oceans Canada decides to make them surplus, they are kind of out to lunch. Is that right?
Mr. Ostola: You are right in pointing out that there are two streams and that the public can petition to have heritage lighthouses designated in both streams. That is correct.
Senator Manning: I have a couple of quick questions. Have the criteria stated in section 16(a), (b) and (c) been established? Could the committee have a copy of that?
Mr. Ostola: Currently, we are finalizing a proposal that we hope to have ready in the near future.
Senator Manning: It would come in handy for us because we will have questions asked of us when we travel.
Mr. Ostola: Once the criteria are approved, I see no problem in providing a copy for the committee.
Senator Manning: I will go back to staffed lighthouses. The minister requested that the committee address the concerns around the de-staffing of lighthouses. The proposed act coincides with that, so we invited you to appear before the committee. Currently in Newfoundland and Labrador, there are about 53 lighthouses, 23 that are staffed and automated and 30 that are not staffed. I am sure there are other lighthouses. Of the 53, do you know how many will go forward on this list? Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Coast Guard did some work on these lighthouses over the past couple of years.
You may not be able to completely answer the question, but could you give us some idea of how a lighthouse would be designated? For instance, if Fisheries and Oceans Canada were to decide it is surplus for the department, does it automatically make it a heritage lighthouse?
Mr. Ostola: No, it does not.
Senator Manning: If we look at the 53 lighthouses in Newfoundland and Labrador, and they say there are 26 of those that are surplus to us, then what happens?
Mr. Ostola: A lighthouse can be declared surplus, and there is also the aspect of the lighthouse that remains in the federal inventory. However, we will talk about the lighthouses declared surplus. There is an opportunity over a two-year period for interested members of the public — lighthouse societies, individual citizens or other interested groups — to submit a petition to have that surplus lighthouse nominated as a heritage lighthouse.
That is how the process works. However, the important thing about surplus lighthouses as opposed to the ones that remain in the inventory is that, for a designation to happen, petitions for those must be accompanied by a commitment from a group that says it is prepared to take the property on.
Senator Manning: The process of determining the heritage then would go to the committee that you are part of. Is that correct?
Mr. Ostola: The petition would be submitted, and the appropriate research would be done, including historical research based on the criteria, community values, heritage values and historical values. That information would be submitted to the consultative group and the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. They would debate it, look at the information and then arrive at a recommendation, either positive or negative. That is another aspect of this: Just because a lighthouse is petitioned for does not mean it will be a heritage lighthouse at the end of the day. A recommendation would be made to the minister. That is how the process would work.
The Chair: I understand how members of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada are appointed, but how is the consultative group appointed? Who appoints it and how is it made up?
Mr. Ostola: Under the act, the minister can seek advice and seek help from citizens. A consultative group was appointed, and it consists of four members. Their role is to provide their grassroots perspective and their knowledge of lighthouses to the benefit of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada as the board is developing recommendations to the minister.
They have met with members of the board on a couple of occasions, and they have had an opportunity to review materials, such as the proposed designation criteria, which were approved. They provided their advice to the board, and then the board made a recommendation to the minister.
The Chair: Is this four people for all of Canada?
Mr. Ostola: It is.
The Chair: Why only four? Do four people know about the whole country?
Mr. Ostola: I am sorry; I have been reminded there are five members. I had not included the former senator in the group. There are five representatives.
The Chair: Who is the former senator?
Mr. Ostola: Senator Carney.
The Chair: Senator Carney and four others. Does it represent the whole country? Are there regions represented on the consultative group?
Mr. Ostola: It was not created on a regional basis, but certainly the West Coast and East Coast and the centre of Canada are represented.
Senator Cochrane: From a staffing perspective, what does such a designation mean?
Mr. Ostola: Do you mean the staff at lighthouses?
Senator Cochrane: Yes.
Mr. Ostola: I cannot really comment on that because I am not familiar with staffing at lighthouses or that issue.
Senator Cochrane: We do have quite a number of them, I would say.
Mr. Ostola: I honestly do not know. That is not an aspect of this issue that I am really familiar with. I think the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would be the ones to ask about that.
Senator Hubley: If a lighthouse is on Aboriginal land or happens to be on a reserve, is it treated any differently?
Mr. Ostola: That is a very good question. I do not have an answer right now, but we can get you an answer to that question.
Senator Hubley: I am not sure that there are any lighthouses on Aboriginal land, but I know they are in close proximity on Prince Edward Island. There may be an interest there, and if a lighthouse were to disappear, they might be interested in being involved. Therefore, I would be interested in knowing if there are any special thoughts along that line.
Senator Poirier: When a group puts in a petition to have a lighthouse designated as a heritage site and it is accepted, is the lighthouse transferred over to them, or is there a fee? Is there a sale?
Mr. Ostola: If I understand the question you are asking, you are saying a lighthouse is surplus and a petition is submitted. Assuming the petition was submitted, the research was carried out, and that it was, in fact, a heritage lighthouse, then an agreement would have to be negotiated between, in most cases if not all, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the group in question. I assume that the terms and conditions of the transfer of the property would be worked out in that agreement.
Senator Poirier: It does not mean that all transfers of a designated heritage lighthouse are all treated the same across the country, does it?
Mr. Ostola: I do not know that they will be treated the same across the country. Circumstances may vary depending on where they are and their particular situations.
Senator Poirier: Is it based on the condition of the lighthouse, the structure or the amount of upkeep that needs to be done? Are those some of the criteria looked at?
Mr. Ostola: It is difficult to say; that would depend on the negotiating that would take place between the department and the group. The nature of the agreement or the business plan that would be developed to transfer the lighthouse and how that would happen would be dwelt with between them.
Senator Poirier: It is not based on property value, then, is it?
Mr. Ostola: Not to my knowledge, no, but I could not say that it is not a factor that would be considered.
Senator Hubley: Transferring the deed is a legal thing. What about the land the lighthouse sits on?
Mr. Ostola: Our understanding is that the land would accompany the lighthouse.
Senator Hubley: Is there an amount, or is it just through time that it has been designated as the lighthouse and the area around it?
Mr. Ostola: I am not really sure. I think it is important to highlight that different lighthouses will find themselves in different situations. Some may have a great deal of land and some very little. The situations would vary.
The Chair: That is why we need an answer to Senator Hubley's question. How much land are you getting? You could ask for a few acres and sell it off for building lots or something. It is important for us to get the answer to that question.
Mr. Ostola: I believe the Department of Fisheries and Oceans may be able to help you with that because they will know the portfolio and what land, what acreage, is associated with different lighthouses.
Senator Raine: I want to go back to the two streams. If a non-profit group or community group wants to petition for one of those lighthouses that Fisheries and Oceans Canada declares non-surplus to become a heritage lighthouse, does a non-profit group still need to have a business plan?
Mr. Ostola: For lighthouses that remain within the federal inventory like the case you are describing, a petition can be submitted, the appropriate research would be carried out, an evaluation of the research would be made, and a recommendation would be made. The recommendation would either be positive or negative. Then the minister would make a decision as to whether that lighthouse was a heritage lighthouse. That would be it.
Senator Raine: I presume many of the groups that petition for designation will be local groups where there is a high perceived community value. I see a scenario where they get turned down and are very unhappy. Is it the number of names on the petition? What determines how valuable it is to them to be a heritage lighthouse?
Mr. Ostola: It is based primarily on the designation criteria that we spoke of earlier. In those criteria, quite a bit of importance is placed on the value that a given lighthouse might have to a community. For example, is a lighthouse a landmark? Does it give people a sense of who they are and what their community is and their history? Does a lighthouse have architectural value? Does it have historical value? All of those things come into the balance to determine whether a lighthouse is a heritage property.
Senator Raine: How badly they want it.
Senator Poirier: If the process works on the same regime as it does with provincial governments, normally they would look within other departments to see whether anybody needs that infrastructure. If not then it would go out to the public sector to see whether anyone wants it. In this area, if a lighthouse is declared surplus, that is will go out through your petition to the municipalities or to local groups. If nobody bites at that point, if nobody takes up on the petition and nobody offers for the lighthouse, is that at one point advertised out to the public, in the media, announcing that this is surplus material and if people are interested they can apply by a certain date to purchase this? Would someone who might want to make a cottage out of it along the shore have an opportunity to purchase the lighthouse before it is burned or torn down and then of no use to anyone?
Mr. Ostola: You would absolutely have to confirm this with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, but my understanding is that regular disposal processes would apply, and at end of the day you could have the outcome you just described. My sense of it is that lighthouses could be turned to other uses through transfer, but Fisheries and Oceans Canada would have to confirm that.
Senator Poirier: Would it be advertised so that the public would be aware that the infrastructure was for sale, if anyone wanted it for a private business or for a cottage or something?
Mr. Ostola: I will not use the word "advertising" because I am not sure what mechanisms that department has in place for alerting the public about available assets, but certainly that is one possible outcome.
Senator Poirier: It would be interesting to make sure that if that does happen there is a mechanism in place so that people can click on a button and get to the information without having to go through a lot of channels to ensure the public is aware of that. I know in the provincial government that does happen. If there is surplus it is advertised, or there are different ways that people can get to it quite easily. Sometimes, instead of destroying the property, people will take advantage of buying it and using it for another purpose.
Senator Cochrane: Has that happened in the past, do you know?
The Chair: Yes, it has in the case of Quirpon Lighthouse. At Quirpon, on the Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland, there is a bed and breakfast now operated by a private business.
Senator Cochrane: I am thinking of another one in the Codroy Valley.
The Chair: Thank you very much for coming. You do have some material that you will get back to us. In the meantime, thank you for being here and answering our questions.
Mr. Ostola: Thank you very much. From a Parks Canada perspective, we have greatly appreciated the opportunity to speak to you. If we can assist you in any way as you carry on your work, we would be more than pleased to do that.
The Chair: Thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)