Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 5 - Evidence - October 19, 2010
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:08 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 Dennis Glen Patterson (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: I call the meeting to order. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. My name is Dennis Patterson, from Nunavut, Deputy Chair of the Committee. Senator Rompkey is engaged tonight in celebrations relating to the navy, so I will chair the meeting.
Before I introduce the witnesses, I invite members of the committee to introduce themselves, beginning on my left.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am Senator Nancy Ruth, from Toronto.
Senator Poirier: I am Senator Rose-May Poirier, from New Brunswick.
Senator Raine: I am Senator Nancy Greene Raine, from British Columbia.
Senator Cochrane: I am Senator Ethel Cochrane, from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Hubley: I am Senator Elizabeth Hubley, from Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: Good evening, I am Senator Losier-Cool from Acadia, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Poy: Senator Vivienne Poy, from Toronto.
The Deputy Chair: I am delighted to note the presence of the female sex in abundance at our meeting tonight; we are blessed.
We are continuing testimony as part of our study on Canadian lighthouses. I am pleased to welcome representatives from the Heritage Canada Foundation: Carolyn Quinn, Director of Communications; and Chris Wiebe, Officer, Heritage Policy and Government Relations. We look forward to hearing about Canadian lighthouses. Senators will have questions following introductory remarks.
Senators, we will have a short in camera meeting after this public meeting to provide an update on future plans.
Ms. Quinn, please proceed.
Carolyn Quinn, Director of Communications, Heritage Canada Foundation: Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear before you this afternoon. It is a pleasure for both of us to be here. I would like to tell you briefly about the Heritage Canada Foundation, HCF. We were founded in 1973 as a national, membership-based, non-profit organization with a mandate to promote the preservation of Canada's historic buildings and places. Since 1999, HCF has been a strong supporter of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, HLPA. We have worked closely with elected officials and local advocates to see the legislation passed into law in 2008 and brought into force this past May.
The HLPA was grounded in the belief that lighthouses form "an integral part of Canada's identity, culture and history,'' and that measures were needed to protect them for posterity. In spite of this, Canada's heritage lighthouses still remain at risk of dereliction and demolition. In my presentation today, I would like to lay out HCF's concerns about the implementation of the act, with specific reference to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' decision to declare all of its active and inactive lights as surplus, and to make recommendations on how the situation might be remedied. It is probably safe to say that the presentation will look more specifically at items F, G, and H of this committee's terms of reference.
I would like to begin by reviewing why the act was needed. Certainly, we can answer questions later about why existing federal measures were not sufficient prior to the act's coming into force. I will do that by restating the four main purposes of the act — one: to provide for the selection and designation of heritage lighthouses; two: to prevent the unauthorized alteration or disposal of heritage lighthouses; three: to require that heritage lighthouses be reasonably maintained; and four: that the act facilitates sales or transfers of lighthouses out of the federal inventory in order to ensure the continuing public purpose of historic lighthouses.
The HLPA has declared that lighthouses surplus to operational requirements can be designated only if a person or body submits a written commitment to buy or otherwise acquire them in the event that they are designated. This acknowledges the reality that many lighthouses are no longer serving as aids to navigation as well as the reality that the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, has really no interest in continuing to invest in these structures.
In May 2010, however, DFO declared surplus virtually all of its 1,000 lighthouses — 480 active lights and 490 inactive lights. The only exception was staffed lighthouses — approximately 54 in British Columbia and 52 in Newfoundland and Labrador.
HCF believes that by declaring all of its lighthouses surplus, DFO is arguably undermining the intent of an act of Parliament as follows: First, by including active lighthouses in the list of surplus lighthouses, DFO appears to be attempting to circumvent its obligation under the HLPA. Active lights are, by definition, fulfilling operational requirements and, therefore, should not be designated surplus. Second, this action by DFO makes designation of any lighthouse contingent on an offer to acquire or purchase it. The irony is that once an offer to acquire or purchase is accepted and ownership transferred, designation under the act would be null and void because the act is limited to lighthouses in federal ownership. Third, while many communities may be prepared to make offers to acquire or purchase their local lighthouses, not all lighthouses are close to an active community and easily accessible. Many are complex, remote structures that need regular investment and special equipment. We have serious concerns about the fate of these lighthouses, many of which are unquestionably iconic and historic yet excluded from protection under the act due to DFO's designation of them as surplus. Examples of these would include Sambro Island, Nova Scotia; and George Island Light, Manitoba, which was demolished recently.
By way of recommendations, the Heritage Canada Foundation urges this committee to recommend that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be instructed to remove active lighthouses from its surplus list, allowing Canadians to petition for the designation and protection of these lighthouses under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act while they are in the hands of the federal government. It also urges this committee to recommend that Parliament impose a moratorium on actions that render existing operational lights surplus to needs, such as installing new lights on sticks in the vicinity of an existing operational lighthouse. In our view, DFO should not be allowed to invest taxpayers' dollars in actions that contravene the intent of the act. HCF also recommends that the Minister of the Environment, who is responsible for the act, ensure that measures are in place in the interim to monitor DFO's stewardship of lighthouses on the surplus list.
Regardless of the department's efforts to water down the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, these structures are still federally owned, and many of them have undeniable heritage value to Canadians. HCF would like to see the minister responsible for the act ensure that both designated heritage lighthouses and those deemed surplus receive alternate forms of protection. If they leave the federal inventory, a heritage easement or covenant on title would ensure the protection of their heritage character. Such measures have been put in place in the United States, for instance. The National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000 requires that sales or transfers must include designation of the heritage structure, maintenance according to heritage standards, and provisions for public access to the site. There is even a stipulation that property reverts to federal ownership if these requirements are not met.
The Heritage Canada Foundation would also urge this committee to recommend that representatives from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and possibly from the Coast Guard be asked to make a presentation before the committee in respect of some of the issues that we have raised today. Thank you for the time that you have allowed us to be here to present and to answer any questions that we can.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I would now like to recognize Senator Murray, who was very involved with steering the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act through the Senate, along with Senator Carney. I would also like to welcome Senator MacDonald from Nova Scotia and Senator Manning from Newfoundland. The floor is now open for questions.
Senator Poy: Thank you very much for the presentation. I am interested in keeping as many of our lighthouses as possible, as part of Canadian Heritage. Can you explain to me what is "lights on sticks?'' Can you just expand on that?
Ms. Quinn: Basically, that is a slang term that really means those lights that are now fastened on top of a metal structure. It is not a building; it is almost a ladder-shaped metal tower that has a navigational aid on top of it. Interestingly, we just hosted our national conference in St. John's, Newfoundland, a couple of weeks ago. We had a session on the issue of heritage lighthouses with quite a good representation of people present and interesting people on our panel. Someone in the audience who got up was an active sailor. He talked about the fact that the light is important, but at some point the visual white structure, and its visibility from offshore, becomes almost as important as a light. I am not really a big sailor so I tend not to think of these structures from how you view them from offshore. I think of them more as places that I visited either by driving to them or by hiking to them, but that certainly is a good point.
Senator Poy: Lighthouses have a romantic aura to them that is very much part of Canada and Canadian history because we have so many coastlines.
What does it mean by "the existing operational lights''? Right now, Parliament is trying to turn existing operational lights into surplus. Are you recommending a moratorium on the action?
Ms. Quinn: Yes.
Senator Poy: Even the lights that are working would be deemed surplus?
Ms. Quinn: That is correct. The department has put over 400 operational lights on their surplus list. They did that in late April or early May, I think.
Senator Poy: Do the sailors not need these?
Ms. Quinn: This is a question that we do not understand. We are looking for clarity on how an operational lighthouse ends up on a surplus list. The only conclusion that we can draw is because it moves the reason for the act's existence from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' perspective away from one of protection to a means of unloading them.
Senator Poy: They are for sale once they are on the surplus list?
Ms. Quinn: Yes.
The Deputy Chair: Not hearing any questions, could I ask Ms. Quinn to tell us a bit about the Heritage Canada Foundation, how you do your work and how you are funded? You were involved in the top ten endangered places and worst losses list. Could you tell us about that, please?
Ms. Quinn: Certainly. The Heritage Canada Foundation was created in 1973 by an act of Parliament. We were created to be an arm's-length organization. Our mandate is the preservation of heritage buildings and historic places across the country. We were created with an endowment in 1973, which was topped up about four years after that.
We are a membership-based organization and we raise funds through our membership dues. As well as being a watchdog organization, we have a mandate to raise awareness about the value of conserving heritage buildings and historic places in Canada, not only for the building on its own, as an iconic place, but also in terms of the role historic neighbourhoods, or streetscapes, or historic main streets in smaller communities have played in our social history, our economic history and our marine history. We have had many programs over the years — for example, main street Canada and heritage regions. For the past five years, we have had, as you mentioned, our top ten endangered places program. Once a year, we put out a list of the 10 most endangered places in Canada. We have had lighthouses on that list, I should add. We also try to recognize good works in conservation through an awards program, including the Prince of Wales prize for municipal leadership in heritage conservation; the Lieutenant Governor's award, which is given to a group or an individual in a province; and, similarly, the Gabrielle Léger award that was named after the wife of Jules Léger, a former Governor General, for a lifetime achievement award in heritage conservation. We try to balance raising awareness with advocacy work in Canada.
The Deputy Chair: I would now like to welcome Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island and Senator Cochrane from Newfoundland and Labrador. We have lots of talent and experience here. Senator Hubley, you had a question?
Senator Hubley: Thank you for your presentation, and welcome this evening. As you may know, we did travel for a fact-finding tour to Nova Scotia and had the pleasure of visiting many of the lighthouses. Nova Scotia has the largest number of lighthouses and also some of the oldest. The tourism, culture and heritage minister recently indicated in an op-ed news release that the province was worried about the ongoing upkeep of some of the province's most historically significant properties, for example, the lighthouses at Peggy's Cove, Sambro Island and Cape Sable.
Do you feel that the provinces have a role in protecting Canada's historic lighthouses? What has been their response thus far?
Ms. Quinn: Although I am not certain about this, there could already be some lighthouses that have become the responsibility of the provincial level. From both a tourism perspective and a local economic revitalization perspective, the provinces, particularly those with a lot of lighthouses, are interested.
We worked with people — and, as I said earlier, we worked with Senator Carney about why we needed this kind of act — about the idea that surplus lighthouses could fall into or become the responsibility of either municipalities or local groups or individuals. For iconic sites like Peggy's Cove, I think it would make a lot of sense if they ultimately ended up in the hands of the Province of Nova Scotia. I think it is still an active light.
Chris Wiebe, Officer, Heritage Policy and Government Relations, Heritage Canada Foundation: I also know informally that the Province of Quebec has been looking into the lighthouses that are within its jurisdiction, and looking at certain eventualities in terms of should these lighthouses come on the market or move out of federal ownership, and which ones, in terms of creating a hierarchy, would be best suited for provincial involvement.
I know that they were looking at that. I do not know all of the details about that, but I have heard informally that is taking place. Some provinces are stepping up.
Senator Hubley: During our trip to Nova Scotia, we had the opportunity to speak to some of the fishermen. I am not totally convinced that, from a fishermen's perspective, these should be in any way changed. In other words, they felt that the lighthouse is the most prominent structure to have on land to support their activities at sea. You mentioned even the size and the presence of the light and the white and red markings on it. Given that, do you feel that there has been enough communication with the fishing communities, and do you feel that their concerns have been part of the discussions?
Ms. Quinn: That is a very good question. I do not know if I am equipped to answer it because I am not fully aware of the extent of the communications. From the extent of our involvement, I can say that, from our experience, we have not been made aware of any real, active attempt to bring that group into the equation. Do you know differently, Mr. Wiebe?
Mr. Wiebe: I am cognizant of Parks Canada's dissemination of materials through its brochures and its website. A number of months ago, just contacting people down on Lake Erie about the status of the bill and what that means for those lighthouses in that area, there was a certain amount of knowledge that needed to be brought to them. They were still somewhat unaware of it. These were people who were heritage buildings-related people. However, in terms of the people in the fishing industry itself, that is a whole different matter and a different sector that needs to be engaged in the protection of and advocation for these structures.
Senator Murray: I thank you for your indulgence. I am not a member of the committee, but I am interested in this subject. I must say I am profoundly saddened by what the government and government officials have done with a very straightforward piece of legislation that we have prepared with very great care. This bill, in its drafting, was massaged with government officials and interested groups such as yours and others. At committee stage, amendments were proposed by the government, and there was a lot of give and take and compromise. At the end of the process, I thought we had a bill that we could all live with and that would be respected by all concerned, acting in good faith. What we have here, what you have described to us and we heard about it earlier, is not good faith. It is the opposite of good faith. We have government officials who decided to make a virtual nullity of the bill that Parliament passed and to make fools of us.
I do not think we have to decide what to do tonight, but we have to reflect on it, and I think we should take no small steps in dealing with what I think is a brazenly contemptuous attitude of government officials towards Parliament. I express the hope that the political authority in this country, the ministers, will not make the mistake of trying to defend this action. These people should be hung out to dry for what they have done. We should not under any circumstances ever accept that they would do what they have done with an act of our Parliament.
Just to summarize here, we passed an act into law that gave Canadians two years to petition the minister to designate a lighthouse as a heritage lighthouse. The minister then would have five years to determine which of these places would be designated as heritage lighthouses. During those two years, the Minister of Fisheries or any other minister who is responsible for lighthouses had to make available to the public a list of lighthouses that they considered surplus. Surplus lighthouses could only be designated as a heritage lighthouse if someone submitted a proposal to buy or otherwise acquire the lighthouse and protect its heritage character.
What happened? The act came into force in May 2010. Within days, I think I am correct in saying, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans declared virtually all of the lighthouses under its control — 480 active lights and 490 inactive lights — as surplus. This was their way of thumbing their nose at this act and at Parliament.
As I said, I think we better reflect on it and decide what we will do about it, because I do not think we can simply ignore what they have done. I think we have to take them on.
Last May when they declared all these lighthouses as being surplus, May 29, did you get in touch with the department and, if so, what response did you get?
Ms. Quinn: We issued a press release fairly soon after that, expressing our concern and surprise. It really was, as you say, Senator Murray, unexpected to say the least. We did also write, I believe, to both the Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as well as the Minister of the Environment, expressing our concern and, of course, inviting the opportunity to meet to elaborate on those concerns.
Senator Murray: Have they replied to you?
Ms. Quinn: No.
Senator Murray: When did you write to them?
Ms. Quinn: In May of this year.
Senator Murray: In May or June.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I wanted to ask about the governance structure of your organization. Can you tell me a bit about that? How much was the initial endowment in the 1970s, what was the top-up, and how much is the membership? Is that your prime means of raising money, and how do you raise money?
Ms. Quinn: We have members across the country, and we ask our members to vote for the representatives on our board. We can have one representative per province or territory, and also our bylaws allow for the appointment of up to six additional board members.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Who appoints them?
Ms. Quinn: A committee of the board makes a recommendation to the board as a whole, and the appointment must be approved by the sitting board.
When we were created in 1973, I believe the endowment was $11 million. I will get the total.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I just want to know more or less.
Ms. Quinn: I think the top-up brought us up to a little over $13 million.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Have you been spending it?
Ms. Quinn: We have a board policy that only a certain percentage of the endowment — our board is mandated to protect the corpus of that endowment, and we are very strict about that because we have been around for nearly 40 years.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Is this money publicly invested?
Ms. Quinn: The money has been so invested at times depending on our programs. In the earlier years, we had programs to purchase, rent, renovate or restore, and resell heritage buildings. We had to step away from that for a while because of the associated costs. We have membership dues, fundraising campaigns every year and certain programs, especially our annual national conference where we have had quite a bit of success with sponsors that pretty much cover the cost.
Senator Nancy Ruth: How much do you raise per year between membership dues, sponsorships and campaigns? Would it be $20,000?
Ms. Quinn: It would be more than that if you consider certain in-kind sponsorship.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Would it be less than $50,000?
Ms. Quinn: Yes. We do a lot of good work with a small group of dedicated people.
Senator Nancy Ruth: How many people are on the board?
Ms. Quinn: We just had our annual general meeting, and a couple of new appointments. I believe we are eight.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You do not always have those extra six, do you?
Ms. Quinn: No. We have them at times only.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It is in the bylaws if needed.
Ms. Quinn: Yes.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If you have eight directors, does it break down as one from the Maritimes and one from the West Coast, et cetera? How do you divvy up?
Ms. Quinn: Every three years, there are board elections. Every board member is entitled to two three-year terms. Members from each province and territory are entitled to nominate a member. Currently, we have a member from every province with the exception of Prince Edward Island. We have two members from New Brunswick, because one of the appointed board members is from New Brunswick, and none from the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
Senator Nancy Ruth: No minister appoints members to your board?
Ms. Quinn: No.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You are free of that kind of interference.
Ms. Quinn: Yes.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for the presentation. I greatly appreciate it. I have a couple of questions. You have been in operation for over 30 years so I am sure you have lots of expertise when it comes to heritage buildings. As well, you have worked with the top ten endangered places. You mentioned in your comments that at one time you bought historic places and restored them, I believe, and resold them on the market. Since your organization has been in place for such a long time, do you have any expertise to share with this committee that could be passed on to communities that might be looking at acquiring lighthouses which are sitting idle? The challenge for many communities seems to be how to go about costing and paying for such a restoration as well as maintaining a restored building to keep it active. From your years of experience, do you have recommendations to share on how other communities might benefit from these buildings?
Ms. Quinn: Absolutely. We could make recommendations as to who in their communities would have the level of expertise they would be looking for in terms of how to go about a restoration project. All of this depends on the condition of the lighthouse and whether it simply needs good maintenance or whether there are mould issues to be dealt with. We have many good contacts across the country with experts in the area of heritage restoration. We can link people together, and we have connections with local lighthouse preservation societies that have done a fair amount of work in this area. Certainly we are able and prepared to give guidance where needed.
Senator Poirier: Do you have a website address?
Ms. Quinn: Yes.
Senator Poirier: Is there a list of communities that can partner, perhaps, to share ideas? Do you know of any sponsorship groups or organizations with financing available for national heritage buildings?
Ms. Quinn: It is a timely question because we are in the process of developing a new website. One of the important new sections of the site will be about lighthouse preservation. These are the very kinds of things that we want to have a mouse click away. We will have good case studies of successful renovations, restorations or alterations, such as the conversion of a lighthouse into a bed and breakfast or a restaurant. We will show the process that has taken place; the fundraising opportunities; how they have prepared campaigns; what has been successful; what has worked and what has not worked; and all of the elements that can link communities together. The website is a work-in-progress as we speak, and that information is an important new component of it.
Mr. Wiebe will lead the development of the material for that section. He might have some other points in response to your question.
Mr. Wiebe: I was thinking about other points of contact that we have with communities. Another untapped area or an area that should be brought in is the planning departments within the municipalities in terms of identification. Many of these lights are located near communities and have become iconic representatives of those communities.
Some places have adopted the local lighthouse as the focal point of their area. It is important to connect not only with non-profit groups, but also with the larger municipal government infrastructure to see how it can fit together. We can help with that.
Senator Poirier: Other than your board of eight members, do you have an office with staff so that people can communicate with HCF? In what province are you based?
Ms. Quinn: Our headquarters are in Ottawa. We lease space in an historic heritage-designated house on Blackburn Avenue in the Sandy Hill area. I believe that we have five or six people on staff.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If you spent 4 per cent of your endowment, it would amount to just over $0.5 million. Does that sound right?
Ms. Quinn: Exactly. I was going to say between $600,000 and $700,000.
Senator Poirier: Is this all on the website so that anyone can find it?
Ms. Quinn: The site is www.heritagecanada.org.
Senator MacDonald: After hearing your presentation and listening to Senator Murray's interventions, I might not express myself with the same vigour, but I see the same problem. When I read your notes I find that, in many ways, they reflect the way I think. This has been a frustrating exercise over the last number of months. We have legislation in place but we are going backwards or spinning our wheels.
Your organization does not fund projects of this nature. You said that, at one time, you put money into heritage buildings and fixed them for resale. That is an expensive proposition. Regardless of what we do, it will be an expensive proposition to maintain these lighthouses. Certainly, there is private funding by organizations around the world. Your organization has been around a long time. What sort of intelligence can you give us on where funding for projects of this nature has been successfully secured from different countries? In particular, when I go to Scotland, I always notice that the National Trust for Scotland has a change box everywhere you go. They raise millions of pounds a year privately to fund different places of historical significance.
Could something like that be established in our country? Do you have some intelligence that you can share with us on this in terms of the options available to us?
Ms. Quinn: That is a good question. As I said, the Heritage Canada Foundation is not a big property-owning organization. We are modeled more on the U.S. National Trust than we are on the British National Trust or the Scottish Civic Trust, which are big property-owning organizations. In a way, it is easier to develop a fundraising campaign around a property because you can see the results; they are tangible.
I think the United States has been successful doing this, but there is a strong philanthropic culture there. I personally do not think we have as strong a philanthropic tradition in Canada. However, that is not to say that something cannot be developed, especially around those kinds of important iconic symbols that lighthouses represent. I think the opportunity is ripe for investment.
Senator MacDonald: I see lighthouses as the type of thing where, if you theoretically established a lighthouse trust for Canada, the public would buy into it. It might provide us with an opportunity to raise funds. If we always put ourselves in the position where we are dependent on government to fund these things, we will increasingly be open for disappointment. We have to look at all of our options. I have great empathy and support for your organization. I am a person who is big on the heritage of the country. I am more than willing to criticize the bureaucracy with you and with the other members of the board. However, we must find a solution for this so that we can establish a functional body that can raise funds. Again, I use the simple example of a national trust. If we establish a national trust, I think the public will respond favourably to it. I think your organization, with so much credibility and history behind it, can take the lead in this and provide some direction.
Ms. Quinn: This subject has been discussed at the board level, namely, the creation of a special fund where monies raised would be directed to a specific building type. In this case, it would be for the lighthouses.
As I said, we just had our annual general meeting and have a fresh board, but there is quite a bit of momentum to strike a committee at the board level to look into this.
Senator MacDonald: Having grown up in a community with a well-known lighthouse, I realize that it is a magnet for people. People go to the lighthouse; kids run to the lighthouse. We can do more with these things, but we must have a plan.
Ms. Quinn: It is a feel-good kind of effort. Any big corporation that wants to see itself associated with a positive project that has community buy-in and support can really get behind something like this. It is a matter of putting a business plan together and of marketing to corporate Canada the potential return in terms of visibility, goodwill and all the rest of it.
Mr. Wiebe: There is strong potential there for corporate monies. I am thinking in terms of the tourism industry. In every tourism ad that you see from the Atlantic provinces, there is also a lighthouse in it. Airlines flying there use it as the iconic symbol. In the U.S. there has been a program at the federal level called Save America's Treasures. They focused on those kinds of iconic places in America. It has been done with money from the federal government and matched by corporate America. I am not sure where the status of that is in terms of federal allotments now.
Thinking about what you are saying, Senator MacDonald, what worried us about seeing the surplus issue arising was that the balance between the government's responsibility to these buildings and the community's responsibility to these buildings was being tipped toward the community in a disproportionate way fairly quickly. Tapping into the corporate funding and corporate sentiment would take time. In this kind of collapsed time-frame scenario, it may not be as favourable to the structures at this point.
Senator MacDonald: That means perhaps we should put the brakes on a bit and buy ourselves some time.
Mr. Wiebe: Yes.
Senator Manning: Thank you for your presentations, Mr. Wiebe and Ms. Quinn.
When we heard testimony from the representatives of the Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, their message to us was that they did not view it as their mandate to protect the heritage lighthouses. Their mandate was with regard to search and rescue and ensuring that navigational aids were there for the people that are on the sea. They stressed the importance of the distinction between a lighthouse and the light itself.
I do not necessarily agree with the designations that they came forward with regarding the active and nonactive lights, the surplus lighthouses, and I certainly do not agree with trying to keep and maintain all the existing lighthouse structures around the country. Neither do I agree with the pressure being placed on community groups and individuals to try to step up to the plate where, in some cases, the government should be. However, when you look at lighthouses such as the one at Peggy's Cove in Nova Scotia, which is a tourism icon, or the one at Cape Spear in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is a tourist icon, I think the federal government has the responsibility to maintain those lighthouses and to promote them, as Mr. Wiebe said a few moments ago.
Perhaps I am asking you for some advice. The upkeep and the maintenance of these facilities increase every year and the pressure on the public purse is to try to address that as much as possible. However, I have read where we have approximately 34 million American lighthouse enthusiasts and about 2 million Canadian lighthouse enthusiasts who travel around and are very excited about lighthouses. Do you have any suggestions on how the financial issue of maintaining and supporting these lighthouses could be dealt with, in particular with some government support? I have a concern, but I do not believe in the romantic side of things when it comes to a full-court press. Yes, there is a side that needs to be maintained for our heritage and culture, but we cannot go and wrap our arms around every lighthouse in the country and maintain it; somewhere along the line, we must start making decisions.
From the work that you have been doing, do you have any suggestions to address the concern about maintaining a certain portion of them and addressing the concerns about losing some of these lighthouses?
Ms. Quinn: That is a good question. I think the act itself was trying to address that. The many times it went back and forth, and the many suggested amendments, and the various things that happened as that act was being developed, were trying to address those things. Having a process for nominating particular lighthouses for heritage designation under the act was addressing that question. You cannot save everything, and particular lighthouses have heritage and historic and community value. A clear process was put in place by the act to enable those nominations to come forward in a timely fashion, allowing the minister the opportunity to review and make decisions on just which sites would be formally designated.
In terms of cost of maintaining a lighthouse or any other historic structure, it is all about maintenance. As soon as you start turning your back on the maintenance of historic properties, your costs start escalating. They are wooden structures, by and large, although there are stone structures as well. Often, the kiss of death for historic buildings is turning your back on them and ignoring them and not doing those basic maintenance and renovation projects.
The DFO mandate is really the navigational side of things, and not the cultural side of owning and being the stewards of some very important historic buildings and structures in Canada. When budgets are being squeezed and pinched, oftentimes the decision is to forgo maintenance. We see this at all levels, and even in the private sector and with individual homeowners. However, if you wait too long, your costs do sometimes become prohibitive.
Our message is really about ongoing maintenance and respecting the fact that the department is a steward of historic properties on behalf of Canadians. The process that the act put in place did allow for that kind of selection of important sites that this declaration of all structures being surplus defeats.
Senator Manning: I agree with you to an extent on the designations of the thousand lights. There are several examples across Canada, and I will give you a couple, if I could, to lay the groundwork for my next question.
Cape Enrage Lighthouse is situated along the Bay of Fundy coastal route in New Brunswick. In 1993, a small group of high school students from Moncton began restoring the site and turned it into a popular tourist organization. A not- for-profit, student-run organization maintains the property.
Rose Blanche lighthouse is on the southwest coast of Newfoundland. The community took over the structure made of huge granite blocks in the late 1990s and raised the money to restore it for use as a local museum.
In Quebec, of the 43 lighthouses along the coastline and on the islands of the St. Lawrence River, 19 welcome visitors and house a variety of attractions, including museums, restaurants and lodges. Visitors can stay at one of Quebec's two oldest lighthouses, Île Verte and Pointe-des-Monts.
Of the lighthouses that are in Canada today, I realize there is a process now to designate some as heritage. Of the ones that have been announced by the department, does your organization have any idea of how many out there could at least be in the ballpark of being designated heritage lighthouses?
Mr. Wiebe: I do not know if we have an exact read on that. I guess that was part of the process that was to unfold from the implementation of the bill. We already know, from the FHBRO, Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, process, what they have identified as heritage — the 111 that have been recognized, the 20 or so that are at the classified level — but we were looking forward to seeing the process unfolding where communities actually petitioned for these lighthouses to get a real read on where the community value lay in that heritage value. In that sense, the surplusing disconnects that possibility or takes it off the table in terms of getting that public acknowledgement, unless there is a business plan associated with it.
Senator Manning: To me, we have two issues. One is the heritage of some of the existing buildings around the country that house lights, and the other is safe navigational aids for people on the water. Coming from Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a variety of both. Some of the concerns that have been raised to me by the general public lean heavily towards safe navigational aids, knowing full well that we have some heritage properties.
If we look across the country at the couple that I mentioned in my remarks earlier, where people, to use the good old Newfoundland-and-Labrador phrase, took the bull by the horns and decided to do something about the lighthouse in their area, I wonder how we address that. We do not seem to be getting any direction. Everyone seems to know what the problem is, but we do not seem to get any direction on how to address the fact that we have parts of our country, communities in our country, individuals in our country, that have raised money apart from government sources and maintained and kept these lighthouses or structures in place. They have made them into major tourist attractions in some cases and are doing extremely well, without government funding. We seem to be at a lock-step here in relation to going forward because we are concerned about the fact that there will not be any government funding.
Ms. Quinn: I think those successes that you described just now helped galvanize people to support the act, because clearly it showed there is a willingness on the part of Canadians, and Canadian communities where there are lighthouses, to do that kind of thing — to step up and create organizations, friends of the lighthouse, to put fundraising campaigns together, to find sponsors and to get volunteers out in droves. The work that volunteers have done in this area is remarkable. Those successes helped sell the idea of there being a heritage lighthouse protection act, which would formalize that process to continue and, in fact, maybe transfer ownership of the lighthouse to those communities, but would also formalize it in the sense that other communities out there in Canada that want to do something similar can. There are examples where the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been supportive of those kinds of community efforts and has contributed toward the cost of paint and things like that.
Senator Murray referred to the idea of the goodwill and that we were all behind the good intentions of this act and where it could go and what communities could do with these iconic structures. Those gestures were in place and helped us believe that this was taking us down the road that we all wanted to go.
You cannot ask communities across Canada to jump on board with 1,000 of them. There has just been a total downloading in one fell swoop of responsibility for these sites onto the backs of communities. It takes time to put a plan together and garner your volunteers, et cetera. I think it is the harshness.
Mr. Wiebe: That is an interesting point about the unevenness in terms of the pickup and where lighthouses get embraced by the community and which ones are not as avidly picked up. We are still figuring out why that happens.
Heritage consciousness in a particular community, the nearness of a light to a large centre and the potential for visitors coming to the site, drive much of it.
South of the border in the United States there is an interesting example of the way that they have identified a process of devolving some of the more obscure lights to private individuals. That might be something to consider at some time. Lights that do not have an obvious community around them might attract private individuals interested in acquiring them for their own purposes. We commented in the briefing note to senators that the United States has put a lot of provisions in place to maintain public access to those private lighthouses at certain times during the year. As well, they have put on title covenants or easements to ensure that the people who own the buildings do not diminish their heritage value through alteration or demolition. They have checks and balances in place with that kind of private ownership, which might be a possibility down the road for some of these structures.
Senator Manning: I have one final question, if I may. When the announcement was made with regard to the 1,000 or so active and inactive light stations across the country, I was amazed. It seemed to the general public that 1,000 lighthouses were deemed surplus. In my area of Newfoundland and Labrador, I got my hands on the list and started looking for some of these light stations that I was not necessarily aware of. I found several of them at the end of a wharf — on top of a stick. There are no structures, just lights. The number of 1,000 throws us off a little bit. It might be scaring away some potential to address some of the concerns. I hate to say someone should do it because: Who is the someone? We need to know exactly what we are talking about in terms of possible sites that could be deemed heritage properties. We talk about taking on the role of trying to determine how many of the 1,000 are out there. There really are not that many. Using Newfoundland and Labrador as an example, I do not know the number there but somewhere along the line, maybe your group will look at the list and determine which ones are navigational aids atop sticks, which ones are navigational aids atop towers, and which ones are possible Canadian Heritage structures that we need to address. As a committee, we certainly would like to have that information. I am seeking it, but I cannot find it.
Ms. Quinn: Certainly, there are a number of lights on sticks, as we say, that have been erected right next to lighthouses that no longer have operational lights. If the HLPA had been allowed to proceed as intended, it would have done a great deal of the work that you just identified as being necessary in terms of deciding where the most important and relevant historic lighthouses are in the country. The act was put in place to help to determine that in a fairly definitive fashion. I seem to be repeating myself but by declaring all of those with functioning lights, whether they are on sticks or fully structured, that are used for navigational purposes, we wonder what they are doing on a surplus list.
Mr. Wiebe: You raised an interesting point: What is heritage? Which ones will be identified as heritage? We have not plumbed that well in terms of public sentiment. One of the problems with the process of the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office is that, in trying to be objective, it excludes that kind of public input. I looked at the scoring of the George Island Light in Manitoba that was demolished. It fell just short of making the list for heritage designation but there was obvious value to the people involved in the fisheries on Lake Winnipeg. Such lights might not fit into the box of the epitome of architectural heritage but they have value in other ways. It will be tricky to try to determine in advance which ones will be identified in that way. A number of iconic examples will be obvious but others will not be so obvious. We will have to see over time.
Ms. Quinn: The scoring used by FHBRO in this case was not a set of criteria put in place to handle lighthouses per se. For instance, determining the landmark value of this building was actually by how accessible it was from land. In fact, a big part of a lighthouse's landmark potential is how visible it is from the water. Going back to the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, part of the process to put it in place was coming up with the kind of criteria that will be used to measure the heritage value of a lighthouse. A very important process will be put in place if the HLPA were allowed to unfold as it was intended.
Senator Manning: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: You mentioned FHBRO, which is the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office. I imagine you work with that office extensively. I note that we have learned through our research that the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office has listed 17 lighthouses and light towers as having classified status with the highest level of protection, and 134 as having recognized status, which is the second highest designation. I note that under the Treasury Board policy of FHBRO, the heritage character of federal buildings must be respected and conserved throughout their life cycle.
Does the federal policy give a heritage conservation aspect to the mandate of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Coast Guard?
Ms. Quinn: I am not sure I completely understand your question. Are you asking whether, by the certain number of buildings classified and identified by FHBRO, the department is not obligated to follow the recommendations for protecting the heritage character of those buildings? They are not mandated to do that. It is kind of a goodwill thing. Of course, once lighthouses with FHBRO designations leave the federal inventory, that protection ends.
The Deputy Chair: I see. Are you concerned about the disrepair of some of these facilities?
Ms. Quinn: Yes. Some of them are owned by Parks Canada, and they have been in good hands with their ongoing maintenance.
The Deputy Chair: It is clear that our committee found there was some obvious evidence of neglect and disrepair in looking at some of the surplus facilities in Nova Scotia. Thank you.
Senator Raine: All of us on the committee are concerned about the intent of the act and the intent being thwarted by the way it is rolling out. I want to remind everyone that five months out of twenty-four months have already passed in the period when the public has a chance to petition to have these lighthouses reviewed to see if they are worth saving. Is it fair to say that?
Ms. Quinn: Yes.
Senator Raine: It is not a complicated process because you just need 25 people to make a petition and the minister must then review that lighthouse to see if it is worth being designated a heritage lighthouse. Is that correct?
Ms. Quinn: Yes, a five-year window, I think.
Senator Raine: Do you have enough members and are they interested enough to take this on as a mission to be those 25 people sifting through the thousand on the list, throwing out the ones that are lights on sticks, taking a look at the maybe 400 iconic lighthouses in the country, and petitioning to carry on for the next five years to determine how those should be dealt with? Is that doable for your organization?
Ms. Quinn: It is probably a lot to ask of our membership. I also think it needs to come from those communities that are surrounding some of these lighthouses. For those lighthouses that do not have communities associated with them, we are working with organizations made up of volunteers, not-for-profit organizations at the provincial level, that are focusing in on the lights in their own provinces. The president of the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society, Barry MacDonald, has made a presentation before the committee. It has grown to represent a lot of the lighthouses in the Atlantic provinces. Similarly, British Columbia has most of the remote lighthouses, which are a tougher sell because they are not near communities. Nonetheless, amongst those remote lighthouses there are those that would qualify as having particular historic significance in terms of Canada's maritime history, military history, et cetera. We work as best we can with representatives in those provinces that are looking to put a process in place as to how to proceed with that kind of thing. Mr. Wiebe is one of the big liaison persons at our organization and he can answer that better than I can.
Mr. Wiebe: That is a good question. I think it arose at an earlier meeting that it could be 25 individuals nominating multiple lighthouses. In terms of the numbers required to mobilize to bring forward some of these petitions, it may not be insurmountable. In terms of the lighthouse potential, there is a lot there in terms of gathering people around particular lighthouses. However, it will be a matter of trying to figure out people in various communities that are real catalysts in terms of looking at these structures in their regions and identifying them. We have a number of people; we are cultivating a wider and wider network to try to bring this into fruition.
Senator Raine: Thank you. I am convinced that we are not getting the word out to the average Canadian that there is a process in place and that they should get involved, because to get it identified and looked at is not a huge commitment. You do not have to commit to a work plan, as I understand it, to get it in front of the minister to be examined. You are correct. In the end, we will have a big difficulty with the remote lighthouses in B.C. That is why I am not convinced that we should be de-staffing them because having staff there will keep them maintained. That will be one of the big issues.
My hope would be that, on your website, you can have a call to action to start getting people attuned, to be a place that is more promotion driven as opposed to printing a brochure and hoping someone will pick it up. That will not get through the noise out there in terms of the promotion of this problem.
Mr. Wiebe: One of the real areas that we have to work on is not coastal Canada, which has a lot more awareness of the lighthouses, but the Great Lakes. There is quite a bit of awareness along the St. Lawrence, but there are lighthouses in places like Manitoba and in interior areas like Lake of the Woods. Bringing those people in would be interesting.
Putting the surplus lighthouses aside, if communities came forward to petition for the designation of those lighthouses, we do not know the criteria at this point. It is up to the minister to decide whether they will qualify as heritage lighthouses. Even if people make their best efforts in terms of advocating for them, we still do not know the criteria around what will be chosen as heritage in terms of those criteria. That still has to come forward. Also, in terms of the minister's decision making, there is always that process. Although communities may value it, the lighthouse may not achieve designation, the surplus issue aside.
Senator Raine: Will the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office determine which ones have national significance?
Mr. Wiebe: My understanding is that the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada will be guiding that process. It will not be FHBRO.
Senator Raine: What is the division between those two organizations?
Mr. Wiebe: The Historic Sites and Monuments Board is in Parks Canada; FHBRO is in Parks Canada, too. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board oversees the nomination of various buildings from across the country, and the adjudication of the national historic sites that come forward from across the country. It is more of an honorary acknowledgement of heritage status. It is not legally binding protection that a national historic site designation comes with it.
Perhaps Ms. Quinn can help with this. They also oversee the processes around the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act in terms of vetting railway stations to see whether they fall within their criteria. They have a broad mandate in terms of setting heritage across the country in different ways.
Ms. Quinn: Yes, and non-governmental heritage properties. FHBRO is about heritage properties that are part of the federal inventory. That is what FHBRO deals with. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada has a much broader mandate.
Senator Raine: I would be interested in hearing a bit more from Senator Murray about what the vision of the act was in this respect. In drawing up the act, who did you think would be the adjudicator of which lighthouses would be considered heritage?
Senator Murray: The minister, with the help of an advisory committee, as I recall, is what is provided for in the act. He will have the last word, which is why the decision of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans infuriates me so much. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans decided to cut us off at the pass so it would be impossible to designate any of these because, once they are declared surplus, there must be a group coming forward at once.
Nothing that is in the hands of the government can be designated because of the administrative decision that has been taken by the department. I do not want to take up the time of Senator Raine, and I am not a member of the committee, but, as I said, we should not let it go. What they have tried to do is pretty cynical. If I were a member of the committee, I would endorse the first recommendation that these people have made: that DFO be instructed to remove active lighthouses from the surplus list. If they are active, they are, by definition, not surplus. They are operational.
I do not know about the other recommendations. I have not thought them through.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Senator Murray. That is a key point that has been made by the witnesses and yourself.
Senator Murray: A little repetition never hurts.
The Deputy Chair: It is a key point that was brought up tonight.
Senator Raine also asked about the more remote lighthouses in B.C. where there are not handy communities. Do the witnesses anticipate there might be fewer challenges in B.C. to designate them as heritage lighthouses because they are remote from communities?
Ms. Quinn: Certainly now, if they have been declared surplus, yes.
Senator Poirier: I have a follow-up and a supplementary to Senator Raine's line of questioning. Many of these lighthouses, even along coastal areas, are in remote areas where they are not within municipalities. Some are within local service districts where they do not have a committee or board members in place. You sometimes wonder whether the people in these small communities actually realize that their lighthouse is in danger. Do they know there is legislation in place whereby they can petition to have it looked at?
Before I became a senator, I was a member of the legislature in New Brunswick, and I remember looking at the annual reports of different departments and questioning why certain areas of the province seemed to be receiving more funding and grants and programs than the section of the province that I was representing. When I started checking around and asking questions, the response I got was that we were not aware that these programs were in place. Even though there were government websites and all this, people were not aware.
At that time, I set up a community meeting where I had different officials who knew about the different programs come in. I invited the community to come in and become educated on what was available and the kinds of help they could get. The ripple effect was phenomenal for the years after because they took advantage of what was there.
I wonder if there is not a role for the lighthouse associations to play in reaching out. They know in each province where the lighthouses are. They probably know which ones are more apt to maybe have a chance of being a historic site and surviving. Is there a role they could play in coming out and setting up meetings and educating people in our small communities to see if there is an interest in getting together and petitioning to have them looked at? Is that something your organization can work on, encouraging the provinces and communities in the provinces to move forward with something like that?
Ms. Quinn: Yes, that is definitely something we are interested in doing. Senator Raine mentioned this as well. A strong promotional campaign needs to be in place more so than what we have seen to date. We are interested in that. I cannot imagine that Parks Canada would not be interested in working with us to do that as well. We have an informal network of stakeholders that we communicate with on a fairly regular basis. These are the key people on the ground. As you say, they know where the lighthouses are. They know what the big issues are. We can work with them to put strategies together to get the word out and raise awareness, because it takes more than a brochure.
Mr. Wiebe: There is a need to work quickly. As Mr. MacDonald pointed out in his testimony some months back, there is an organization in Nova Scotia. There once was an organization in Newfoundland. Perhaps something could come together there again as well. There is no organization in New Brunswick, but there are key people in P.E.I., which is better covered. In B.C., there are a few contacts but no formal organization. It is loose across the country, and the usual suspects have not been identified as of yet. You have made a good point.
Senator Raine: I have a slight change of tact here. The Department of National Defence is the single largest property holder in the federal government. They have 52 classified federal heritage buildings and 236 recognized buildings. I would think many of them are iconic as well. Do they properly maintain their federal heritage buildings? What about other federal departments? Why is it that all of a sudden the lighthouses and light stations have become orphans?
Ms. Quinn: I have to say that buildings owned by the Department of National Defence have been on our top ten endangered places list. We have seen them come down even if they have strong recognition for heritage value.
Again, it is not just DFO. It is broad. We are not pointing the finger. We have tried to raise awareness, as our mandate dictates that we do, around these issues. We do occasionally find that, by doing so, we have successes. We oftentimes hear people say, "We had no idea that this building had reached this state. We just always assumed that because it was under federal ownership, then certain standards would be met.'' Often, it is just getting the word out. The response from the public is sometimes incredibly quick.
Senator Raine: Is it safe to say that it is easier to save a building if it is owned by the federal government rather than divested in what we foresee in the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act?
Mr. Wiebe: That is an interesting question.
Ms. Quinn: I have to think about that.
Mr. Wiebe: I think they present their own individual challenges. In terms of operational requirements and other things, it is difficult saving buildings within the federal stable as well. Just recently, we had some experience with the Downsview hangars in Toronto. This was an air force hangar from the 1940s that a developer wanted to reuse. We heard about it quite late because the only necessity to inform the public was through a small newspaper ad, and we missed it. When federal departments want to divest themselves of buildings, they have to talk to other federal departments, Crown agencies, the provincial government and also the municipal government. They send them a notice that something is coming on the block. The requirement to contact the wider public is not there, aside from that newspaper advertisement.
There are issues there, but I think it comes back to the federal government's management of its heritage buildings generally. There was some talk about five or six years ago of a larger piece of legislation for all building types that the federal government owns, to take federal heritage building policy from policy to binding legislation that would mandate certain kinds of maintenance and certain kinds of care of heritage structures.
In the United States, they have had a real embrace of their heritage buildings in the last 10 years in terms of seeing that as one of the primary presences of the federal government in communities, and wanting to have buildings that represent the nation in a positive way. They have made a lot of headway in terms of embracing those older structures within their communities across the country. They have made it the focal point of their vision for management of those buildings.
Senator Raine: I can relate to that because in my hometown of Rossland, B.C., where I grew up, the post office on the corner of the street is a beautiful heritage building. The town really fights to keep that post office and its heritage character because it means a lot to the town. These are not inconsequential matters. You might think they are just lighthouses but they are more than that. I guess that is why it is so frustrating that DFO put some 1,000 odd aids to navigation onto this surplus list. It makes this more complicated than it needs to be. Would it be fair to say that the first step is to get someone somewhere to do a list of what we are really talking about, the iconic lighthouses?
Mr. Wiebe: As I said to Senator Manning, it comes down to a certain amount of subjective understanding of what is iconic and what is not iconic. What is a light on a stick? What is a bona fide lighthouse? We can get a pretty good idea of which ones are truly indispensable, while some of the others might be a little more complicated to determine. There should be some winnowing out and work to understand exactly what we are dealing with in terms of all lights on the list. It is a very good point.
Senator Raine: We will count on you to do that work.
The Deputy Chair: This has been a very good discussion. I do not see any more questions. I would like to ask the witnesses a question before we close. You mentioned having written to the minister responsible for Parks Canada and to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans following this designation, I believe. Could we ask you to furnish us with copies of those letters, please?
Ms. Quinn: Absolutely, yes, we will do that.
Mr. Wiebe: I will have to look through those again but I believe that we addressed the letter specifically to Jim Prentice, Minister of the Environment, because he oversees the bill. It was likely copied to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but I will check on that.
Ms. Quinn: I am not sure. Certainly, we will provide copies to the committee.
The Deputy Chair: I thank you on behalf of the members of the committee. This has been very informative and has given us much food for thought about these urgent issues that you have brought to our attention.
Ms. Quinn: In turn, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear and make a presentation today. It was wonderful to see Senator Murray here because we had worked with him in the months leading up to the HLPA. He has made some very important points and provided advice for members of the committee, which Heritage Canada Foundation would certainly endorse.
I would also like to say that if there are any other questions, or if there is other information that our organization could provide or be of use to the committee, feel free to contact us. Thank you.
Senator Murray: I am sure the committee will do what the committee sees fit. You will have a report in due course. I would say that you should get your membership to make the strongest possible representations to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that they remove from the surplus category those lights that they know and have identified as being active. It is really nonsense that active lights should be declared surplus so long as they are active.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I thank Senator Murray for his interest in our committee. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members in saying that his background with this act is invaluable to the committee. We appreciate his contribution.
Senator Murray: Thank you for your indulgence.
The Deputy Chair: With that, I adjourn this meeting of the committee. We will suspend for a few minutes before we continue in camera so that steering can provide an update on our plans. The meeting is adjourned for five minutes.
(The committee continued in camera.)