Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 3 - Evidence - May 11, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6:23 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: This is a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. My name is Bill Rompkey, and I am the chair of the committee. I will go around the table soon and ask people to introduce themselves.
I might just say at the beginning that we have begun our study of lighthouses across the country as requested by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We have set our own terms of reference. We have heard so far from the minister. We have heard from George Da Pont and from Parks Canada. We will be holding further meetings in Nova Scotia. We are planning to go to Nova Scotia in May, pending the approval of our budget, which I hope will happen tomorrow. If we get that approval, we will be travelling to Nova Scotia beginning on May 31 until June 4. Clear your calendars for that time. That will probably be as much travel as we can do this spring. We are hoping to travel next fall to Newfoundland and British Columbia, as well as to Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Of course, we want to visit the Great Lakes too, because they are part of the country. We hope we will be getting further budgets in the fall. For now, our trip to Nova Scotia will give us an idea of how the de-staffing of lighthouses is working and has worked in that province.
We are pleased to have with us tonight Mr. Barry MacDonald, who is one of the several hundred thousand MacDonalds in Nova Scotia. There seems to be a dispute between Senator MacDonald and Barry MacDonald about exactly how many there, but there are a lot, and we will probably meet more. Tonight, we have Barry MacDonald of the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society. We understand that this is probably one of the most outstanding societies of its kind in the country. We are hoping to learn a lot.
Without further ado, I would turn the floor over to Mr. MacDonald. Welcome. We would like to hear your presentation, after which senators will have some questions.
Barry MacDonald, President, Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all honourable members of this committee for an opportunity to address issues surrounding Canada's lighthouses. At this time, we find ourselves at an important crossroads. On the one hand, the time-honoured tradition of lighthouse keeping is once again under review, while on the other, Canadians await the implementation of Bill S-215, an act to protect our heritage lighthouses.
Although the primary focus of the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society, NSLPS, is the preservation of Nova Scotia lighthouses and lighthouse sites, the society also supports the retention of keepers at the remaining staffed light stations in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and British Columbia. On-site keepers provide a high level of site care that, for the most part, no longer exists in Nova Scotia. Keepers and their families maintain a variety of traditional and modern structures that are a part of Canadian light station built heritage. The Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society also understands that lightkeepers on remote light stations provide essential services through regular weather observations and search and rescue, SAR, work in areas where there are few nearby SAR resources. In conclusion, the NSLPS supports lightkeepers in the area of safety and in the preservation and maintenance of lighthouse sites.
Lighthouse de-staffing began in earnest in the Maritimes in the mid 1980s and ended in the summer of 1993, when lightkeeper Marjorie Fairservice ended a long career at Cape Forchu at the southwestern tip of Nova Scotia. Light keeping spanned 259 years in Nova Scotia, with the first lighthouse in Canada showing a whale oil light at Louisbourg in 1734.
There are a couple of points dealing with maritime light keeping worth noting at this time. I refer to points C and D in the terms of reference.
Point C is the role of lightkeepers. Many lightkeepers have been very dedicated about careful maintenance of heritage buildings and rare equipment at light stations beyond their basic aids-to-navigation functions. The loss of their contribution leaves a gap that should be considered.
On Point D, the impact of electronic aids to navigation, an unfortunate consequence of automation and de-staffing was the destruction of many significant light station buildings, keeper's dwellings, old fog alarm buildings and sheds, as well as the loss of rare optics and equipment. They were deemed no longer needed and often destroyed in the rush to get keepers out or thin down their work. In retrospect, this resulted in the loss of historical assets and alternative use possibilities. It was unfortunate that a portion of monies realized from de-staffing was not invested in property maintenance instead of allowing the majority of buildings to deteriorate in some cases beyond the point of restoration.
As early as 1984, the potential for lighthouse alternative use was recognized by communities eager to see their lighthouses preserved. This was the case in West Point, Prince Edward Island, where a not-for-profit group, the West Point Development Corporation, was formed. A business proposal submitted to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, included construction of a 12-room inn, a full-service restaurant and a gift shop. Artefacts loaned from the Charlottetown Coast Guard were put on display in the lighthouse along with interpretive panels explaining the early history of the lighthouse. Employing approximately 20 people on a seasonal basis, this venture has been an economic success story for the island and continues to flourish to this day.
A similar venture unfolded in Nova Scotia soon after the Cape Forchu lighthouse was de-staffed in 1993. An initiative to acquire the lighthouse and former keeper's dwelling was launched by a dedicated group of volunteers. Seeing the tourism potential of the site, the Municipality of the District of Yarmouth became involved and, together with the volunteer group, put together a business plan and proposal to have ownership transferred from DFO. At the time, no mechanism existed to transfer federal property to a not-for-profit group for a nominal fee. Cape Forchu was the first lighthouse property in the country to be transferred under Treasury Board Bill 96-1. After many hurdles involving countless hours of volunteer time, Cape Forchu staff began to greet visitors anxious to experience the history of this unique light station. At its peak, visitors numbered over 50,000 yearly, and it continues to be a major tourism draw.
These are but two examples of many success stories in the Maritimes. Each year, a bus loaded with lighthouse enthusiasts from the U.S.A. visit our maritime lighthouse communities, and after sampling our famous maritime hospitality, they return home to tell their friends. We see this as a great building block to our tourism industry.
Lighthouses are very much a part of our rich maritime heritage. They are the sentinels that marked sea roads, which were so integral to trade and development from coast to coast to coast. Canadians have a special attachment to these beacons, as is evident in the widespread support for the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. Lighthouse preservation groups across this country see the value in preserving these structures that once served their forefathers so that future generations can appreciate the important role they once played.
Efforts at securing federal legislation to protect our lighthouses were rewarded in May of 2008 when Bill S-215 was given Royal Assent. The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act will come into force on May 29, 2010, at which time petitions will be received by the Minister of the Environment to have lighthouses included under this legislation.
One serious gap exists in the potential success of this bill. Heritage is not part of the mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and although DFO is the custodian of these heritage structures, the department is underfunded to care for them in a proper manner. This fact is evident in the poor condition of lighthouses classified by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, FHBRO, such as Cape Sable Island in Nova Scotia.
It is not the intent of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act to see all lighthouses designated to be transferred to community or private interests. Protection for many of the iconic lighthouses across the country will be sought but will be out of the scope of communities to care for them on a go-forward basis. Two examples of this are Sambro Island in Nova Scotia and Point Prim in P.E.I. In cases such as these, DFO must not declare iconic lighthouses surplus but must partner with local groups and other levels of government to care for these structures and ensure they are available for the public to enjoy.
To sum up, I hope I have given honourable senators an insight into how important lighthouses are to Canadians and how volunteers continue to invest thousands of hours each year to see that they are preserved.
The Chair: Before I go to questions, I would like the committee members to introduce themselves.
Senator Poirier: Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Raine: Senator Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator Cochrane: Senator Ethel Cochrane from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Manning: Senator Fabian Manning from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Senator Nancy Ruth from Lake Huron.
Senator Marshall: Senator Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Hubley: Senator Elizabeth Hubley from Prince Edward Island.
Senator MacDonald: Senator Michael MacDonald from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: We have a cross-section of the country and a lot of experience with maritime interests.
Senator Cochrane: Could you walk us through the process currently in place for disposing of lighthouses? How will that change when the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act comes into force later this month?
Mr. MacDonald: The present protocol for the divestiture of any federal government building, but in particular lighthouses, is that the building is offered first to other federal departments, then to the province in question, then to local municipal groups — so it goes through all three levels of government — and then it is offered to a community group, a not-for-profit group, and that is pretty much where it ends as far as lighthouses go.
Many of them have been divested in the Maritime region and indeed in Ontario and Quebec, but not so much on the West Coast. The change with the passage and implementation of the bill is that they will be given status under the bill, which under certain sections prevents their disposal, alteration, demolition or public sale. There is a process in place within the bill to protect against all that stuff.
Architectural considerations are built into the criteria of the bill that will pretty much guarantee that any alterations made will be done in concert with present Parks Canada standards.
There is still some question as to whether a lighthouse will be brought to a reasonable state of repair before it is passed over by Coast Guard. Environmental studies are done on all lighthouse sites across the country, and before a lighthouse is passed to a community group, the environmental issues will be resolved. That is pretty much it.
Senator Cochrane: From your perspective, being from Nova Scotia, has automation had any effect on the heritage value of lighthouses?
Mr. MacDonald: Very much so. Once de-staffing took place in earnest in the 1980s and right up until the 1990s, lightkeepers took pride in these buildings, as is evident if you look at photographs from the days when lightkeepers were present. You would see summer photos of manicured lawns and freshly painted buildings. The properties were very well looked after.
Within a very short time after de-staffing, they were subject to vandalism. No money was spent on these major light stations at all, and as is the case with any building, with a combination of not being cared for or maintained and vandalism, it does not take long until some of these sites are in a bad state.
Senator Cochrane: These are the automated lighthouses?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
Senator Cochrane: Who was in charge of taking care of the outside, the lawns and everything else?
Mr. MacDonald: The lightkeepers.
Senator Cochrane: After the lighthouse was automated?
Mr. MacDonald: No. Very little maintenance was done after the keepers left. The grass grew up, and the buildings came to be in a very sorry state of disrepair.
Senator Cochrane: No one from any organization was in charge of doing that?
Mr. MacDonald: No. The only lighthouses that were cared for were a few lighthouse sites. Port Bickerton on the Eastern Shore of Nova Scotia was leased and still operates under a lease with a local community group that cared for the light. Coast Guard does help them out to a point in caring for the building, but the group members do a lot of it with their own fundraising and volunteer time.
Senator Cochrane: That is only one.
Mr. MacDonald: Roughly 18 out of 160 lighthouses in Nova Scotia are cared for by local groups.
Senator Cochrane: Do you think that having staff at automated lighthouses will be considered to be less important once the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act is passed?
Mr. MacDonald: Not in my opinion. There are a couple of dynamics involved in the issue of light keeping on the West Coast, if that is where you are going with this, and in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are search and rescue functions and coastal security, as well as the fact that when you have keepers on site, they do look after basic maintenance. That does figure in, and it will be the same case, I would almost guarantee. If and when the lightkeepers are pulled off these existing sites, the same thing will happen.
Senator Cochrane: The sites will become dilapidated?
Mr. MacDonald: I would say so.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Mr. MacDonald, how big is your organization? How many members do you have?
Mr. MacDonald: At present, I think our membership is about 150. We have gone up as far as 240, I think. Membership comes and goes.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Out of those 150 to 240 members, how many would be men and how many would be women?
Mr. MacDonald: I would have to say it is split pretty close down the middle. I could not give an exact figure, but judging by meetings and past experience, I would say we are pretty close.
Senator Nancy Ruth: In your speech, you said DFO must not declare iconic lighthouses surplus and must partner with local groups and other levels of government to care for the structures and ensure they are available for the public to enjoy. Has any consideration been given by your society to privatizing these, not to have them go into the hands of groups but simply to sell them off to any individual who might wish to own a lighthouse? What experience have you had if that has happened?
Mr. MacDonald: Our primary objective is to guarantee that these will be there for future generations to enjoy. I think when you give the opportunity for a private individual to acquire one or several of these you run a risk that fences go up and locks go on the gates and the public no longer gets in to see them. We like to see them either owned and operated by the community group, because they are there for a public purpose, basically, or, for some of the bigger structures like Race Rocks in B.C. and Sambro Island, Nova Scotia, the Coast Guard maintaining ownership and partnering with the community group. The last route we want to see is private ownership of these things.
Senator Nancy Ruth: How many have been privatized?
Mr. MacDonald: Very few.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You have not seen many locks on the gates, then?
Mr. MacDonald: In Nova Scotia, we have. I can think of one or two off the top of my head, and they are both private cottages and private property. I would not say that if you knocked on the door, they would turn you away, but it is private property, and it is not available for the public.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It is one or two out of how many in Nova Scotia?
Mr. MacDonald: Out of 160.
The Chair: If I could ask a supplementary question, when DFO would dispose of a lighthouse to a private operator, could or would or did the department put any conditions on it at all, or can the buyer do exactly what he wants with the lighthouse?
Mr. MacDonald: Up until the preservation movement became prominent after 1993, the protocol that I spoke about earlier did not include a community group. If no level of government was interested in acquiring a property, then it was put for sale by public tender, and there were no stipulations at all. It was like any other land sale.
The Chair: And there are none now?
Mr. MacDonald: The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act provides for a couple of guarantees, we will call them, in the agreement of sale and in the agreement of transfer, where the new owner cannot sell or profit for, I think, 10 years, although I cannot say exactly. The real property people at Coast Guard wrote this up. I have not seen it myself, but I know there are guarantees there.
The Chair: Therefore lighthouses that are disposed of to private interests in the future might not be treated exactly as they were in the past.
Mr. MacDonald: No, there are definitely improvements there. When the legislation was being drawn up, I tried very hard to get something that they have in the U.S., which has a similar disposal program. They have what I like to call a reversion clause, whereby if a community group fails, for whatever reason, then that property cannot be sold for a period of, I think, one year. The property is held in a trust. That gives time for a community group or another interest to get a business plan and take over the lighthouse. After a year, if no one has come forward, then the light is sold at fair market value and the monies realized go back into the treasury, which is where they should go.
The Chair: I am glad you mentioned the U.S. comparison. I hope we will get some questions on that.
Senator Manning: You mentioned in your remarks a couple of success stories. We are delighted that you have had a couple of success stories, and certainly we wish those groups and businesses all the best. I am more concerned about the ones that have not been so successful, that have been more or less left to the winds and rains and the elements. You mentioned a couple of lighthouses that need a tremendous amount of work and have been left to disrepair and have become eyesores, I guess, in the communities they are in. Can I get some feedback from you on that?
One of the issues we are dealing with as a committee is that the de-staffing of lighthouses has taken away the human element from them. You mentioned a few moments ago the manicured lawns. I know. I live close to a lighthouse in Newfoundland and Labrador, and even in the past few years, we have seen the disrepair happening with the cutbacks to the hours. Can you give us an idea of what you have seen and experienced and how you think we need to proceed when we are dealing with this?
Mr. MacDonald: An example that immediately comes to mind is Cape Roseway on the South Shore of Nova Scotia. Cape Roseway is the second oldest light in Nova Scotia, next to Sambro Island, and it is on an island called McNutts Island, not a very far drive from Shelburne. I personally know the last lightkeeper and his family and have seen photographs of the light station. If you are familiar with light stations, there was a keeper's dwelling and an assistant keeper's dwelling and an old fog alarm building that housed a diaphone, which is a Canadian invention and one of the best fog horns in the world. There was an oil shed and a boat shed, and of course the lighthouse in the middle. It was just beautiful.
I was invited out to a tour of that lighthouse site three years ago, and I took pictures. I was appalled at how that lighthouse had gone downhill. Both keepers' houses were the subject of vandalism. Doors were blown off. Some of the older sheds had fallen down. It looked terrible. The group that led the tour, that was part of that tour, wanted to try to approach Coast Guard on this and wanted to rent the keepers' houses and have bed and breakfast operations. They had many good ideas, but it has taken so long to get this in gear that many of the buildings are beyond repair. Cape Roseway is a real crime because of its age and because the possibilities for alternative use were so great until a couple of years after the station was de-staffed.
Senator Manning, I could probably give several more examples.
Senator Manning: Mr. Chair, as a point of interest, when we get the opportunity to travel to Nova Scotia, we should look at both the good and the bad.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has over the past couple of years been divesting itself of a fair number of surplus wharves and small craft harbours, but part of that process is bringing those facilities up to a standard before turning them over. Supposedly that is the way we are supposed to be doing things.
In the process of turning a lighthouse over to a community group or organization, from your experience, does DFO or Coast Guard come in and bring it up to standard and then turn it over? I know you touched on that already, but I want some clarification about what we are saying here. At the end of this month this legislation will come into force, and somewhere in the next couple of months we will have a list of surplus properties. That is how we understand it from Coast Guard. These surplus properties will be offered to the communities. If some not-for-profit organization is willing to come in and take over and preserve those properties, has any financial help been given to the community organizations through Coast Guard or anyone else to assist in bringing those lighthouse properties up to standard before they are officially turned over to the organizations?
Mr. MacDonald: In some cases, yes; and in others, no. I had a meeting this morning with Mr. George Da Pont, the Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, and I brought up that issue with him. In our view, it is not fair to turn over to a community a property that is in such a desperate state of disrepair. Some effort should be made to bring it back to a reasonable state of repair. That has been the case, but I will give you two quick examples.
In Senator Hubley's part of the world, there is a light at Wood Islands, when you come across the ferry from Nova Scotia. It is a scenic light, and probably many people are familiar with it. The Coast Guard paid to have that light moved back from the bank. The bank was eroding, and the Coast Guard paid a considerable amount of money to have that light moved and have a new foundation put under it before it was turned over to the community, and that is a good thing; I applaud the Coast Guard for that.
On the other hand, I have been working with a community group just around the corner from me on the Eastern Shore of Nova Scotia with a lighthouse called French Point, and it is a pepper shaker tower. Apparently there is no funding available to do anything with that light. They want to pass it over as is. My point is that what is good for Wood Islands, P.E.I., should be good for French Point. It should be a level playing field before this process really gets going.
Senator Manning: To go back to your community group, do you go out and ask people to become involved in your organization? You say you have a group of 150. That is pretty well province-wide, in my understanding. Are there local chapters? Is the organization divided into different entities throughout your province?
Mr. MacDonald: We act as an umbrella group for a number of local preservation groups, Cape Forchu being one of them. I could not tell you the exact number of affiliates we have, something in the order of 30 around the province. We act as an umbrella for those groups and try to help them out in things that are common. For instance, trying to get a broker who deals in liability insurance became an issue. We also handle issues around dealing with Coast Guard and the federal government.
Senator Manning: In regards to the running and operating of a facility after it has been handed over, I understand from your comments that some places have ongoing businesses, such as restaurants. For a facility that is just for sightseeing, can you give us an idea of how the local organization raises the funds to maintain the property? Is it out in the community fundraising? I am sure we will be asked that question as we go around.
Mr. MacDonald: It is a combination of things. Any fundraising activity you can mention is used, including bake sales. Many of the smaller lights are opened on a seasonal basis to tours, although some of them do not really have an admission box at the door. Visitors are encouraged to donate whatever they can afford, and money is raised that way. Our provincial and municipal governments are helpful for things like paint jobs. Once a light has been passed over, there is no longer any federal help for it.
From an historical point of view, another very helpful measure is that often our province will fund summer students as interpreters at these sites. It gives the kids a summer job, and they learn some of the maritime history of their community. These things are great tourist draws, real magnets for tourists, if they are set up properly and display some photos of the history of the community. You find community groups become inventive at fundraising and paying their own way.
The Chair: A news report appeared in the Cape Breton Post today. I think it was Senator Nancy Ruth who retrieved it for us. It is about Ottawa's public-private partnership program. Minister Flaherty announced money for new emergency radio communications, but he said the project will be financed through Ottawa's public-private partnership program, the first such announcement under a fund created for the program. He said governments around the world increasingly have been turning towards public-private partnerships to take on the responsibility of designing, building, financing and operating public infrastructure. This was at the RCMP headquarters in Halifax. He added that the Conservative government has been working closely with the provinces and territories over the past year to accelerate the largest investment in infrastructure in modern times.
I put that on record for us to investigate, senators, and for future reference. We want to look at that, because we have been searching for funding, and as you say, there is no funding under DFO.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much for coming, Mr. MacDonald. We have some notes here that talk about the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society's position on the relocation of lighthouses and also the Doomsday List, 2008. Can you explain what that is all about?
Mr. MacDonald: We have a couple of policies drawn up by a past president and someone very qualified to write such directives. Dan Conlin is the curator of marine history at the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic in Halifax. He is past president of the society I represent this evening. We drew up some guidelines to help communities. We have one lighthouse at Five Islands on the Bay of Fundy that has been moved four times. We have some guidelines. Protection of the heritage character of the buildings is mainly what those policies are aimed at.
The Doomsday List is a series. We publish that in our document we put out four times a year to the membership. It basically draws attention to lighthouses and lightkeepers' houses and different ancillary buildings in serious condition that are almost to the point of no return. It is an attempt to get attention to these structures that need special attention.
Senator Raine: I suppose Lightkeeper, which goes out to your members, is widely distributed? Is it on the website? What other methods do you use to communicate with the public?
Mr. MacDonald: We have a very good website. We just did a major update to our website. We are in the process of putting our Lightkeeper publication on there as a PDF so people can print it off, which will save us some money. Lightkeeper is probably the best tool we have for communication with our members, and we send complimentary copies of the Lightkeeper out to different provincial and some federal folks as well, to keep the news out there.
Senator Raine: Do you keep an inventory of the 160 lighthouses and who is manning them or which ones are unmanned? Some I suppose are in the parks, such as Peggy's Cove?
Mr. MacDonald: Peggy's Cove is on provincial land but is still a federally owned property. On our website we have a feature that lists every single lighthouse in Nova Scotia, some of which are not around anymore, and you can go in and get statistics and specs on each light in the province.
Senator Raine: Will the Peggy's Cove lighthouse be among those that will be for sale?
Mr. MacDonald: The federal government would love nothing better than to see the province of Nova Scotia take that over, because it is considered by everyone to be the provincial tourist icon. If you look at all our tourist brochures and literature, it is hard to find something that does not have a picture of Peggy's Cove. DFO would like to divest itself of that. The department would like to see the province take it over, but so far the province has not seen it within its scope to take it over. We have tried pretty much unsuccessfully over the last eight years to engage the province in this whole program of lighthouse divestiture, and it is not only in Nova Scotia. P.E.I. and New Brunswick have looked at it. For whatever reason, provinces do not seem to want to get involved.
Senator Raine: Do you see a society forming to take on that lighthouse? Who is looking after it now?
Mr. MacDonald: Senator, you may have heard all the publicity around it last year. It is such a tourist icon and is seen by so many people. It was in deplorable condition last year. Minister Shea had apparently given a directive to have it painted, but for some reason it did not get painted. It became a real political football at one time last year.
This may sound a little harsh, but I have been given the scenario by different people. This building is such a high- profile lighthouse in the country, probably the most photographed light in Canada, yet it is in deplorable condition. As someone mentioned to me, if this was your private property and you let it go to such a point, someone from some level of government would soon be knocking on your door saying, "Either tear it down or fix it up, or we'll fix it for you. There are bylaws." Yet the federal government seems not to want to look after some of these structures, even something as high profile as Peggy's Cove.
Senator Raine: Peggy's Cove is right there. The tourists are right beside it.
Mr. MacDonald: Absolutely.
Senator Raine: Why would that not be a national park or a historic site? This is shocking.
Mr. MacDonald: Peggy's Cove is a protected area under I think the Department of Natural Resources in Nova Scotia. You cannot go out there and build a new house. There are all kinds of restrictions on the village of Peggy's Cove. There are only 60 families there. Yet, it is not a federal or a provincial park. It is provincial land, actually, but again, I cannot give you a reason why that is not a park.
The Chair: It sounds like a Canadian problem.
Senator Raine: It sounds like Recommendation No. 1 in our report. That is ridiculous.
Mr. MacDonald: One more note on Peggy's Cove: You may not be aware that it housed a post office for several years. It had its own postmark. When my wife and I took Senator Carney out there three years ago, we gave her the grand tour. She was quick to send postcards to friends in Ottawa and B.C. with the Peggy's Cove cancellation stamp on it. Last year, Canada Post announced that it was pulling out of the lighthouse for environmental reasons. Mould was identified inside the lighthouse, so Canada Post pulled up stakes and left, which was a blow to tourism because tourists love stuff like that. You could get your postcard stamped with a lighthouse stamp on it. We were sad to see that end.
The Chair: Senator Raine, Senator Cochrane had a supplementary, if you do not mind.
Senator Cochrane: We may add, then, that Coast Guard is not taking care of the lighthouse at Peggy's Cove. Are there other areas like Peggy's Cove that they are not taking care of?
Mr. MacDonald: Strictly in tourism terms, we have another lighthouse at Neil's Harbour in Cape Breton, which is probably the second most photographed light, and no maintenance has been done on that building for several years now. Efforts were made by a community group to take it over, but there were problems locally with getting funding, and the divestiture process got stalled. Very little maintenance, if any, has been done to that over the past few years. It is getting into sorry condition.
Senator Cochrane: Coast Guard is responsible for those buildings. Is someone making the people at Coast Guard aware that those buildings are not being looked after?
Mr. MacDonald: They are very much aware of this, but Coast Guard's mandate is to provide a marine safety program in the most cost-effective manner possible. They have shifted their focus away from maintaining these heritage structures, big and small, that house the actual light, the optic equipment in there. They say they can provide the light more cheaply on a steel tower outside than in the lighthouse. DFO has had the NCSP, the National Capital Spending Plan, for several years, and I forget the amount of the funding. We got them to fix up a few of the heritage buildings in Nova Scotia, because when word got out that they were coming in to replace a lighthouse with a steel tower, people would not settle for it. However, for the most part, any place they can replace one of these heritage structures with a steel tower, that is the way it is going. Therein lies the problem. There is no mandate for heritage, which is at an inconvenient time with the passage of Bill S-215.
The Chair: Senator Raine, I think Senator Nancy Ruth has a supplementary question as well.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Who owns the land, that rock, on which sits the lighthouse at Peggy's Cove?
Mr. MacDonald: The Province of Nova Scotia.
Senator Nancy Ruth: The province owns it and leases it to the Coast Guard?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, there is some kind of a long-term lease arrangement there. It has been the case that Coast Guard will buy a piece of land just big enough to set a light on and will guarantee access to it with a right of way. I could not really say for sure what the state is at Peggy's Cove. I know a big storm blew through that did a lot of damage to the infrastructure. The sidewalk leading out to the lighthouse hides the electrical and communications conduits, and I think the repairs to that were funded jointly by Coast Guard and the province.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Are all the buildings around the lighthouse — the parking lot you pay to go into, the restaurant you drink your beer and eat your fish and chips in — lease relationships with the province of Nova Scotia?
Mr. MacDonald: To the best of my understanding, yes.
Senator Nancy Ruth: All the profits go to those who take the leases?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Nothing comes back to maintain the lighthouse even though there are profit centres around it?
Mr. MacDonald: Very little, if any, yes.
Senator Raine: Is there no tourism association or organization, such as the Nova Scotia Department of Tourism, for instance, that could take charge? In many resort areas with public infrastructure that needs to be maintained, a tax is put on the tourism business around to help fund it. Is nothing like that happening for Peggy's Cove?
Mr. MacDonald: No. As I mentioned, our society made a couple of proposals to the provincial tourism department pointing out the obvious economic benefits not just to Peggy's Cove but to lighthouses in general in the province. We said some level of funding should be provided or some partnership — partnerships like those in the newspaper article Senator Rompkey just read. Many government departments are big on partnerships today, and we see this as an excellent opportunity for community groups to partner. Community groups are reluctant to jump in. There are all kinds of fears due to liability issues today and so on. They just need a little bit of encouragement here.
For instance, Pointe-au-Père in Quebec is owned by Parks Canada. It owns the lighthouse there. My wife and I toured there last year. The old lighthouse is a tremendous facility. The Empress of Ireland museum is across the road, and the old Okinawa submarine is parked there. It is a tourist magnet. Parks Canada has a partnership with the Empress of Ireland museum staff to maintain it. They provide an interpreter, someone to cut the grass, some simple things like that, and it seems to be working fine. Those are the kinds of things we would like to encourage and want to see happen as this bill goes forward.
The Chair: You mentioned you made a proposal to the government of Nova Scotia. Could you send us a copy of that?
Mr. MacDonald: If I still have it, Senator Rompkey. I had a computer catastrophe and lost many files. I do not know whether that was one of them.
Senator Raine: It would be helpful for us to get a paper on the history and the problems with Peggy's Cove, because that is an iconic lighthouse that every Canadian can relate to. Even a little story in the media that talks about what will happen to Peggy's Cove with this new legislation coming on would be helpful. Surely there must be talk of a change in the ownership status of Peggy's Cove Lighthouse.
Mr. MacDonald: I will see what I can find.
The Chair: You mentioned a website. Does any other province have a website like you do? You said you could find various individual lighthouses. Do other provinces have that?
Mr. MacDonald: P.E.I. has one; Quebec has one called Le Québec Maritime, which is a pretty good website. In Ontario, in Senator Nancy Ruth's area, the Cove Island society has a very good website. That is one of the old Imperial Towers right up at the top of the Bruce Peninsula. I think the Chantry Island folks in Southampton have one as well. That is about it.
One area that we have not talked about here but should put on the record is Manitoba. Many people do not realize that Lake Winnipeg had 18 lighthouses at one time. It is a big lake. There are Lake Winnipeg and Lake Winnipegosis, and it has been difficult to get the word out to the folks around Gimli. I have made several attempts, but it is worth noting that there are still active lighthouses on Lake Winnipeg.
The Chair: We will take note of that.
Senator Hubley: Welcome, Mr. MacDonald. We have a few MacDonalds in P.E.I. as well. I do not want you to think that Nova Scotia has them all.
This is an interesting subject, and I think we are learning a lot about your organization. Are there similar organizations, lighthouse preservation societies, in other provinces as well?
Mr. MacDonald: P.E.I. is the only other province with an active society at the moment. Newfoundland and Labrador had one. We had two really great people — I know Senator Manning knew them — Rita Anderson in Port aux Basques and I forget the lady's name in St. John's, but funding issues sent that down the tubes. We do not have any in Newfoundland per se now.
New Brunswick has kind of a dormant society. It had a really good society for a number of years, but it ran into some problems; however, there are still many small groups around New Brunswick, although the umbrella group is not there.
Senator Hubley: Do you know of any national or international organizations?
Mr. MacDonald: When I got to know people across the country over the last few years, a few of us made an attempt to start what we called the Canadian lighthouse foundation, and that is still very much on the books. We are too busy with other issues right now to pursue it, but it is something we hope will come to fruition over the next couple of years.
The U.S. has the American Lighthouse Foundation and the United States Lighthouse Society. There is also the World Lighthouse Society, of which we are a member. There are quite a few lighthouse groups around the United Kingdom, France and Norway.
Senator Hubley: Would you share with us the differences between Canada and the United States when it comes to the protection of historic lighthouses, or can you point to certain aspects of the U.S. program that we should look at? Is it a richer program? Are they able to get funding? Do you have any of that information?
Mr. MacDonald: There are many similarities between the two countries in the way governments have approached lighthouse divestiture. I cannot really say exactly because I have not studied that preservation act now for a couple of years. I was quite familiar with it at one time, and many parallels exist between the two.
As for funding, the U.S. being a richer country, I guess, they are funded much higher than we are. They also face many of the same battles we do. I personally know the founder of the American Lighthouse Foundation, Tim Harrison, and his successor Bob Trapani, and they face many of the same issues with funding and small groups. It depends on where the lighthouse is located. Just because they have a larger population base, they are able to get more money, raise more money than we are, but there are more lighthouses to look after, too.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much. I have one other comment. Senator Nancy Ruth asked a question on the number of women involved. Since women are very successful at operating small businesses, I hope you will promote that through your media sources to encourage women to look at some of the lighthouses and see whether they could design an appropriate business for those facilities.
Mr. MacDonald: P.E.I. has one of the lighthouse pioneers in Canada, Carol Livingstone. She was basically the spark plug for the whole West Point operation back in 1984. Ms. Livingstone took a little sabbatical for a couple of years, but she is back into it now and deserves a lot of credit. She has been very much a pioneer and one I have looked up to. I learned a lot from her in my early days.
Senator Hubley: We have learned a lot from her.
The Chair: That brings up the point that maybe we should learn something from her. We are looking for future witnesses, and perhaps she is one we should have. Also, would it be a good idea for us to invite an American to come? If so, who would it be? Would that be useful for us?
Mr. MacDonald: It probably would be useful just to see their approach. I can only speak in a very general way. The people I mentioned, the former president of the American Lighthouse Foundation, Tim Harrison, or his successor, Bob Trapani, would both be excellent to have. They both live in Maine.
The Chair: That is not too far away.
Mr. MacDonald: I could provide you with their contact information.
The Chair: What do you think, senators? Would that be a good idea?
Hon. Senators: Yes, good idea.
Senator Marshall: Welcome, Mr. MacDonald. Are all of the 160 lighthouses that we are talking about owned by DFO?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
Senator Marshall: All of them. Just in your general knowledge, what condition are they in? I know reference was made to one that was in good condition. We also talked about Peggy's Cove. I am trying to get a handle on how big the problem is with regard to maintenance. Are most of them in a state of disrepair, or are they in pretty good condition?
Mr. MacDonald: Most of them are in various states of disrepair, owing mainly to the fact that very little maintenance has been done over the years.
Senator Marshall: When the new legislation comes into effect, do the lighthouses remain with DFO, or are they transferred to another organization?
Mr. MacDonald: We need to see this list of surplus lighthouses that has been promised and called for in the bill; we had hoped to have seen it by now. That will tell the tale on which ones will remain with DFO and which ones will be transferred.
At the end of 2015, any lighthouse in Canada that has not been designated under the bill — let me be clear. There are three possibilities here: DFO can maintain and partner with communities; the lighthouses can be designated and passed over under the legislation; or any light that does not make the grade as far as designation goes can still be divested, which is the route they want to go. The way I see it, they want to get rid of as many of these things as possible.
The Chair: We should mention that the testimony we heard, as far as I can recall, is that any group of, I think, 20 people anywhere in Canada could apply for any lighthouse. That is important, because we are on television and people are watching. That is my recollection, senators.
Again, the testimony we heard at our last meeting was that any group of 20 Canadians, who do not have to live near that lighthouse, can apply for a lighthouse. If it is not on the list, then DFO will have to decide whether they agree to divest themselves of it or not. I think that was the testimony we heard, was it not?
Mr. MacDonald: Actually, the number is 25 people.
The Chair: That is right. Yes.
Senator Marshall: You said the second option is being passed over. Whom do you mean? Passed over to whom? You said the first option is some joint arrangement with DFO; the second alternative is to be passed over; and the third one is to be divested.
Mr. MacDonald: Passed over and divested basically mean the same thing. The only difference is that with the second option, this would be a divestiture, for lack of a better term, of a light that has been designated. It has met the criteria; we have graded it and decided it is a candidate. As long as it gets ministerial approval, then it is understood in the bill that these 25 people who petition for it will now own it, run it and care for it forever and a day.
Senator Marshall: Do you have any preference with regard to the process to be used for divestiture? I had gotten the impression that you were adverse to privatization. Do you have any preference in mind with regard to how a divestiture process would work?
Mr. MacDonald: There is a definite advantage in the second option as far as divestiture goes. A light that is passed over to a community that has been designated realizes all the good things that the bill affords for it, whereas if it did not make the grade for Bill S-215 and it is just a straight divestiture, it only has some of those conditions I spoke of earlier where it cannot just be a real estate venture by someone; the light must be kept for a certain number of years before it can be turned over. As far as divestiture goes, the second option would be the favourite one.
The Chair: Senator Marshall, I think Senator Manning has a supplementary, if you do not mind.
Senator Marshall: Sure. Go ahead.
Senator Manning: Maybe I did not understand what you were saying correctly. Somewhere soon we are supposed to get this list of surplus lighthouses. Your organization oversees 160 lighthouses in Nova Scotia. Has there been any consultation with your organization regarding dealing with what will be deemed surplus?
Mr. MacDonald: No.
The Chair: Good question.
Senator Marshall: Based on what we are discussing here, it is possible that a significant number of lighthouses will be ready for divestiture in a poor state of repair, and so the issue becomes a big funding problem.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Are you familiar with any sources of funding to address what looks to be a big monetary problem coming?
Mr. MacDonald: Not really. This partnership announcement by Minister Flaherty today has my interest, for sure.
The writing is on the wall that DFO definitely does not want to be part of this on an ongoing basis. I got that message loud and clear. The funding is definitely an issue, because we have only five years to do this. As we know, economic times are not good right now, so how much funding will there be? We have questions to answer, such as where will we get the funding? How will we divide it up fairly and equitably across the country, based on the number of applications we get for inclusion under this legislation? There are many questions yet to be answered here.
Senator Marshall: Certainly, 160 lighthouses are a lot of lighthouses.
Mr. MacDonald: When we were doing the preliminary work, I worked with a gentleman from real properties with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and we found so many questions, such as how many of these we would be getting. We just did a cross-section of some of the larger lights with big problems, such as Wasaga, which Senator Nancy Ruth would be familiar with, around the Collingwood area. The estimate to get that one back into good condition was $4.5 million. How much money will we have over that five-year period, and how will we divide it up? It is a big issue.
Senator Marshall: Perhaps I can reword an earlier question, then. Of the 160 lighthouses, how many would you say are in pretty good condition? How many would you say are in a good state of repair?
Mr. MacDonald: That is a difficult question to answer. I could not answer that with any amount of accuracy. I think probably the more important question here is how many of those 160 lighthouses will be applied for under the legislation and will qualify for some type of repair. That might be the more important question.
At the end of the day, we realize we will not save them all. The Coast Guard is picking away at them in Nova Scotia and P.E.I. right now. Some work has been done under this National Capital Spending Plan, but I could not give you a number. None of them is in good condition.
Senator Marshall: I was about to say that the impression I am getting from you is that a good many of them are not in good condition.
Senator Poirier: Welcome, Mr. MacDonald. It is interesting to see all of the work that you have done in Nova Scotia. In New Brunswick, we had an organization at one time that was strong. I remember it was a few years back. It is sad that it was not able to continue. Approximately how long has your organization been in existence in Nova Scotia?
Mr. MacDonald: About 15 years.
Senator Poirier: You are a non-profit organization. Do you have paid staff to help you out or nothing at all? How are your organization's activities funded?
Mr. MacDonald: From above.
Senator Poirier: You have no stable funding that comes from any government level or anything?
Mr. MacDonald: No. We rely on memberships. I was being facetious. We have some anonymous donors that are good to us. We have an anonymous donor in Ontario who sends us $5,000 every year and does not want his or her name published.
To give an example of the spirit of community groups, in the community of Sambro, where our oldest lighthouse is located, local folks out there put together a CD of local talent. We did not ask them, but they agreed to give us 50 per cent of the proceeds of the sale of that CD. That has turned into almost $10,000 that we now have in the bank account from that one venture alone, but we have no stable funding at all.
Senator Poirier: I do not know how much of a success it was, but I remember seeing the association in New Brunswick. I was a member of the legislative assembly back then. They did a calendar, and each month of the year contained a picture of a different lighthouse. People were buying the calendars, and the group did a promotion with them at that time. Sometimes things like that can be a success because people will pay over and above what the calendar is worth because of the cause.
You mentioned that two or three lighthouses in Nova Scotia were bought privately and are being used for cottages. A couple of others were bought or transferred and are being run as businesses. Were those lighthouses over and above your 160?
Mr. MacDonald: No, they would be part of the 160.
Senator Poirier: You said they were all owned at one point by DFO, but a few are no longer owned by them. Out of the 160 lighthouses that DFO is still using — and I know none are staffed in Nova Scotia — how many are housing an automated light, or are they all vacant and abandoned by the side of the ocean?
Mr. MacDonald: I wish I could give you numbers for how many are lighthouses housing an aid to navigation and how many are steel towers. That 160 figure I gave you is 160 aids to navigation; they are not all necessarily what we consider to be traditional lighthouses. I could not tell you what that percentage is. I would have to go on our website and count that up.
Senator Poirier: Are there are more than 160 structures?
Mr. MacDonald: No.
Senator Poirier: There are 160 structures of a lighthouse still in existence in Nova Scotia?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
Senator Poirier: When they did the transfer years ago to the private sector or to the business sector, was the land that the lighthouse sits on transferred too?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
Senator Poirier: It was sold at minimum cost and they own it, then.
Of those 160 lighthouses, are any designated national historic sites?
Mr. MacDonald: No; we have not transferred anything.
Senator Raine: What about Peggy's Cove?
Mr. MacDonald: Peggy's Cove is a recognized structure under the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office. There are two levels of protection under FHBRO: classified and recognized. Classified is the better designation. I think Peggy's Cove is a recognized site, Senator Raine.
Senator Poirier: Other than that, you do not think any are designated national historic sites?
Mr. MacDonald: None that have been passed over.
Senator Poirier: Of the designated national historic sites owned by DFO, approximately how many are in Nova Scotia?
Mr. MacDonald: Maybe half a dozen.
Senator Poirier: Who is maintaining those sites to ensure they stay up to par? Is there anything being done to them?
Mr. MacDonald: Very little is being done. There is an interesting story there. The Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office has a policy. It is under the Minister of the Environment, and there are two classes: recognized status and classified status. The custodial department is responsible for the upkeep of buildings that are either recognized or classified.
My first lesson in FHBRO was after Hurricane Juan. The historic Gas House, which is part of the lighthouse fabric of Sambro Island, was severely damaged after the hurricane. I was vice-president at the time and had to search out how to get this building fixed. It was in danger of total destruction because it had suffered severe damage. I wrote letter after letter that went around in a big circle, with one department pointing the finger at the other. It was a redundant exercise to follow it any further.
DFO was the custodial department. Therefore, according to the FHBRO policy, DFO was supposed to fix up the building. However, the department refused to do so. It said it did not have the funding for that, and I was told to see Parks Canada, which manages FHBRO. However, Parks Canada sent us back to DFO. That is the way it worked. We had hoped to change that with the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act so that it would no longer be policy; it would be law. Someone has to come forward.
Senator Poirier: Do you have an idea or do you dare to guess how many of the 160 lighthouses owned by DFO today will be on the list? How many will DFO want to take off its hands?
Mr. MacDonald: Basically, DFO would like to see all of these historic buildings off its inventory. That will not happen, because there are not enough community groups to do it. I go back to the department's mandate, which is not maintaining heritage buildings. DFO would rather fulfill its mandate with the newer technology.
At the end of the day, it will depend on how many communities step up to the plate either to have lighthouses divested or to include them under the legislation.
Senator Poirier: Out of those 160 lighthouses, how many do you feel could be designated historic sites that are not designated today?
Mr. MacDonald: Again, that is difficult to answer. I know Nova Scotia fairly well, but I could not begin to give anything that is close to accurate on a figure like that. We will know the story when the act kicks in on May 29 and we start getting applications from around the province.
The Chair: Do you know how we could find out about the historical relevance of various lighthouses? Is there any mechanism for us to find that out?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, there is. FHBRO has commissioned studies on many of these lights across the country. If you were to contact Parks Canada, people there would be able to provide you with information on a good portion of the lights across the country. They have done several studies on individual lights — everything from their age and type of architecture to community interest. It is all there in these FHBRO reports.
The Chair: Perhaps we should ask our researchers to see about getting information on that for us.
Senator Poirier: Are you aware of any partnerships that exist with Peggy's Cove? There you have a whole area where the province owns the land and different businesses are set up. You have the lighthouse that sits on these lands, and it has no ability right now to generate any funds, but it is also an important part of this piece of land for the other businesses that are there making profits. If the lighthouse were gone, would that have an impact on the number of people who visit? Would there be fewer visitors?
You spoke about of the possibility of going into a partnership. I have been there and have seen the restaurant and the boutique. They could have something like a Save the Lighthouse Meal, and every person who purchased that meal could pay a dollar or two more, and that would go into a fund for the lighthouse. Also, when people rent the restaurant or the space, one of the clauses could be that they have to have something there to save the lighthouse and put aside a certain percentage.
Mr. MacDonald: That is an interesting idea. One way we are missing the boat in lighthouses like Peggy's Cove goes back to issues of liability and environmental concerns. I will give two examples. Chantry Island Lighthouse is located on Lake Huron right off Southampton. It is a beautiful old Imperial Tower and draws many visitors every year. There are boat rides out to the island. You pay a fee and get a boat ride and a tour. You get the ultimate lighthouse experience of going right to the top and seeing what the lightkeeper saw and seeing that beautiful island. We found it to be true in many cases in Nova Scotia that people would get to a lighthouse only to find out that for some reason, and liability is usually the issue, they cannot climb to the top. It is important for people to have that lighthouse experience. Chantry Island lends itself to that because the steps are within the building code, and for some reason the mercury that used to be there years ago is not an issue, although it is in other parts of the country.
In Peggy's Cove, if there were a partnership between the provincial government and a local community group and they charged $5 to climb to the top of Peggy's Cove Lighthouse, people would be lined up to get that experience. They are missing the boat there as far as funding goes to keep the maintenance up on that light. It is not possible now just with the way it is structured inside. They did not put these things in for building code years ago. Lightkeepers literally climbed ship's ladders between levels to get up there, so in order to have people safely ascend and descend the lighthouse, some work would have to be done, but that is minimal. These things need to be looked into. In my opinion, emphasis must be put on partnerships that involve local levels of government.
Senator Cochrane: If this idea were pursued, how many months of the year would this be able to operate?
Mr. MacDonald: In Peggy's Cove?
Senator Cochrane: Bringing people out to the lighthouses and showing them the experience of climbing to the top and seeing the beautiful island.
Mr. MacDonald: It could easily be May through October.
Senator Cochrane: You do have high winds there in Peggy's Cove.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, it is dangerous surf there at times.
Senator MacDonald: I deliberately went last because I have so many questions about this. I let my colleagues go first to see what questions we could whittle down and get out of the way, and I would go at the ones I thought should be asked that maybe somebody else would miss.
I will start with island lighthouses. Most of the lighthouses we talk about are on the shoreline, but we have lighthouses in places like Scatarie Island. Under this act, we talk about scenarios in which non-profit organizations would manage the lighthouses, or even have a private business to create revenue from these lighthouses. However, some of these lighthouses are off the beaten track, and some are fairly remote. Visitors have to get into a boat. Under this act, what is the solution to maintaining these properties and raising enough revenue to keep them going, and what is the solution to having access to them? The scenario for these island lighthouses seems to be much more difficult.
Mr. MacDonald: Islands do present special challenges, no doubt. Prior to the act passing in the house, Senator Carney and I got involved in the issue of access. Basically, DFO wanted wharves and helicopter pads to be taken out of the description for buildings and ancillary structures, and the question of access became a major concern. At the end of the day, I remember calling a couple of friends over in St. John's, Newfoundland, and I consulted with everyone I could across the country. One guy asked, "Where are you going to find a heritage wharf?" Wharves just do not last. The conclusion we came to, and it was kind of a gentleman's agreement that came out of that, was that any island light that would be included under the legislation would be given state-of-the-art landing facilities, something an insurance company would approve of. That is that issue.
The other issue in developing island sites depends on the island you are talking about. Scatarie Island is an excellent example, because once you get on that island, it is fairly easy to get around.
Senator MacDonald: There is only one good place to land there.
Mr. MacDonald: You are limited here, and I try to be careful when I say that I do not want to see private interests get too much involved here. If some private developer came up with an idea to develop the Scatarie Island site, I would much rather see a private developer have it and care for it than to have it fall down from neglect. I am sure a guarantee of access would not be that big an issue if somebody were to undertake a business plan to develop an island like Scatarie. You cannot be too closed on this. You have to keep an open mind to see as many of these places as possible put to use. You are limited only by your imagination.
Senator MacDonald: There has been some evolution in the ownership of land in Scatarie over the past few years. Land that was expropriated by the government has slowly been returned to individual families. I am not sure of the sites where the lighthouses are located or what the status of that land is right now. I know much of the land on Scatarie has been returned to individual families that used to maintain the lights out there.
Mr. MacDonald: It is the same with Seal Island.
Senator MacDonald: In terms of maintaining the integrity of these structures, part of the integrity is how the light presents itself. In Louisbourg, people have been trying for eight or nine years to get the flashing light returned, a magnificent flashing light that was there for decades. They have a very dim light there now in relative terms. Are there any flashing lights left around the province? Have they all been replaced? Are other societies around the province meeting the same resistance as the people of Louisbourg?
Mr. MacDonald: That is an interesting question. We have very few of those old optics left. There are only two left in Nova Scotia, one at Low Point at the entrance of Sydney Harbour and one at Cape Sable Island.
Senator MacDonald: They still have the light for Louisbourg though.
Mr. MacDonald: Yes, that was returned. They actually have it stored at the fortress, I believe.
Senator MacDonald: It is stored; they want to get it back, and it is a real struggle.
Mr. MacDonald: That became an issue. It was a combination of the power line falling down in a storm, and with the advancements in solar technology it became more cost-effective to replace that with a solar than to rebuild the power line.
Senator MacDonald: It seems they will take any opportunity they get to whittle away at these things.
Mr. MacDonald: Absolutely.
Senator MacDonald: I would assume that the cost of maintaining the big iconic lights, like Louisbourg or Sambro or Yarmouth, and giving them the treatment they deserve would be much more significant than it would for the many smaller lights around the province.
Do we have any idea of how much it would cost to maintain one of these lights for a year in the shape that you would deem adequate, once it was up to scratch?
Mr. MacDonald: You raise an interesting point, one I have made, and it was accepted by Coast Guard. This is another advantage of partnerships. We have had experiences where a community group will lease a Coast Guard- owned light that may need something, such as a seawall in the case of Coffin Island a few years ago, or just a regular paint job. It has been our experience that maintenance can be carried out by a community group partnering with DFO for probably 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the cost of what the federal government would pay for the same job. That is just the reality of it.
In the case of Coffin Island, down off the south coast there, we had serious erosion problems that eventually came back to bite us. In round figures, the estimates from Coast Guard were something like $250,000 to put an armour stone wall in the area of the lighthouse. I flew around there in a helicopter and saw how bad it was. We had a gentleman down there who at the time was 80 years old, and he led that group and they ended up getting that seawall in there for under $70,000. It was probably the same contractor who put a bid in with DFO, but he did it because the community group is a locally based, grassroots organization, and many people in the community will get behind that.
Regarding the cost to maintain these buildings, my point is that it will be a lot cheaper to maintain one that is in partnership with a community group than one that is strictly federal.
Senator MacDonald: You mentioned liability concerns a couple of times. I think you make the point, and I think it is well made, that everyone wants to climb to the top of the lighthouse. I was fortunate to climb to the top of the one at Louisbourg many times when I was younger. Has anybody proposed a solution to this? Is there a reasonable solution, in terms of liability, that could be applied across the board? Has that been discussed?
Mr. MacDonald: We have looked into that several times now in Senator Manning's country. The light at Cape Anguille, which I visited a few years ago, is a beautiful, scenic light — much like Louisbourg, actually. In order to give people that ultimate lighthouse experience, DFO replaced the ship's ladders with stairs that were safe to climb. A proper staircase is really where you have to go with that. You have to protect yourself and the public. Otherwise, it is just too dangerous.
In many cases, this is not a major expense in the grand scheme of things, but that is the fear. With Louisbourg, for instance, the New Jersey Lighthouse Society came up to Nova Scotia two years ago and arranged a bus tour from Yarmouth right through Cape Breton. Being from Cape Breton, I got tasked with that end of the trip. These folks are lighthouse enthusiasts. They came to Nova Scotia for one reason and one reason only, and that was to see lighthouses. They knew Louisbourg was the site of the oldest light in Canada, and they wanted to see it. Having a very good relationship with the Maritime Coast Guard, as I do, I volunteered, and I told the Coast Guard if they gave me a key I would just allow the visitors to look on the inside, and they would not even go that far. That is how afraid they are of the liability issue.
Senator MacDonald: Who would not go that far?
Mr. MacDonald: Coast Guard.
Senator Poirier: I was in one lighthouse that had stairs. There was a sign saying visitors were welcome to go up but at their own risk. Does that take away the liability? I cannot remember which lighthouse that was, because I have seen and been in many.
Mr. MacDonald: No. We looked into it and got a legal opinion on that. If you are not providing something that is safe and within the building code, you can have people sign waivers and everything else, but if something serious happens it will end up in court. That is the legal opinion we got.
Senator MacDonald: I have one more question that gets back to part of the initial mandate of the committee.
The last lighthouse in Nova Scotia to be automated was done in 1992. I am sure that over the past 17 years you have spoke to many former lighthouse keepers and probably many mariners. It is fairly apparent that once the lighthouse keeper, the person who maintains that structure, leaves, the dilapidation of the structure begins. However, in terms of the service the lighthouse provides for mariners, the function of lighthouse, how much feedback have you received from mariners who say that lighthouses are just not as good any more without those lighthouse keepers, that the lighthouses do not do the good job they used to do? Is that a big issue?
If the property was maintained properly and if some of these concepts that we are going through were put into effect — and I hope they will be — and if the light was adequate, would there still be a need for the lighthouse keeper?
Mr. MacDonald: I think in certain areas yes, definitely.
Senator MacDonald: Is the need more prevalent in certain areas in particular?
Mr. MacDonald: Canada has such a diverse coastline. Comparing the east and west coastlines and their needs is like comparing apples and oranges. There are pretty good stretches along the west side of Vancouver Island where the only eyes and ears there are lightkeepers. Varying sizes of marine traffic go there, from large tankers to smaller fishing vessels.
In my opinion, the lightkeepers should be able to do a lot more out there, for instance in search and rescue functions, which they are not trained to do. There was no formal training years ago, but lightkeepers were expected to be search and rescue people, and indeed they were search and rescue people.
Senator MacDonald: What about the situation in Nova Scotia? Are there any lighthouses in Nova Scotia that should have kept their lighthouse keeper? Are there any geographical pressures that would dictate that?
Mr. MacDonald: That is a difficult question to answer. For some of these remote locations, like Cross Island off Lunenburg, Scatarie Island, Flint Island, and St. Paul Island, if you looked for instances of marine accidents where there was either loss of property or loss of life where a keeper could have made a difference, there are no statistics available to support that. Before I came here I checked to see whether there were any such instances.
B.C. has a totally different set of circumstances just because of the nature of the coastline.
I was quite surprised and dismayed to see that the first de-staffing done in Newfoundland and Labrador over the last number of years has been at some of the island locations, such as Belle Isle. They took the lightkeepers off Belle Isle. Why? That is where you would want to have eyes and ears, in a remote location. It makes no sense to me why they would take lightkeepers off remote islands like that and put them on mainland sites.
Senator MacDonald: Mainly because the decisions are made in Ottawa.
The Chair: Senators, since there are no further questions, I would like to thank the witness very much for speaking with us and for being so frank in his answers. It has been very helpful, and there are things we will follow up on.
We may see you when we come to Nova Scotia.
Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much to everyone for having me here. It has been a pleasure to share what knowledge I have, and I look forward to your trip to Nova Scotia. I will be your personal tour guide.
The Chair: Senators, we have a meeting Thursday morning at nine o'clock to go over our fisheries report. This meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)