Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 8 - Evidence - February 17, 2011
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 9 a.m. to examine issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans (topic: Canadian lighthouses).
Senator Bill Rompkey (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. This is the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and my name is Bill Rompkey. I will ask people to go around the table and introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Hubley: I am Elizabeth Hubley, senator from Prince Edward Island. I really like the lighthouses and hope we can save them.
Senator Cochrane: I will make that pitch later. I am Ethel Cochrane, and I am from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Poirier: I am Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick, and I guess being Maritimers, we all have the lighthouses at heart.
Senator Patterson: I am a Maritimer too, from Nunavut, Dennis Patterson.
Senator MacDonald: I am Michael MacDonald, senator from Nova Scotia. Good morning.
The Chair: Thank you. We are being broadcast, just for those people who may wake up at two o'clock in the morning because they cannot sleep and turn on CPAC and see us. Our mandate is to wake people up early in the morning.
We have been studying lighthouses. We have already tabled a report on staffing. We want to finish our final report this spring, including the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act.
We are fortunate to have before us this morning officials from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and Parks Canada. We have a lot of questions that we have discovered over the past months during our study, so we are very pleased to have you here. We do have a limited time as someone wants this room at 10:30, but I intend to stay here until I am dragged away kicking and screaming.
I want to welcome from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Marc O'Sullivan, Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, and Shirley Jen, Senior Director, Real Property and Materiel Policy Division, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, and from Parks Canada, Larry Ostola, Director General, National Historic Sites, and Patricia Kell, Director, National Historic Sites Policy Branch. Let us begin with Treasury Board. Please make your presentation to us, after which we will have some questions.
Marc O'Sullivan, Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you. We understand that the committee has expressed an interest in Treasury Board's real property policies, namely the Policy on Management of Real Property and its associated directive and standards, as these pertain to the disposition of surplus lighthouses.
Real property is a significant corporate resource for the Government of Canada that is critical to enable the delivery of government programs. Federal real property holdings are diverse, running the gamut from military bases to research labs to office buildings, among others. The federal inventory of real property includes almost 25,000 Crown owned and leased properties and approximately 36,700 buildings throughout Canada. The approximate book value of Crown- owned assets in 2010 was approximately $20 billion.
[Translation]
The Treasury Board of Canada's policies reflect principles fundamental to the management of federal real property. They emphasize Deputy Head accountability to ensure sound stewardship and value for money through effective, efficient, and financially responsible management aimed at program delivery.
The underlying principle is federal real property can only be used by ministers to carry out their department's mandated programs. If a property becomes surplus to a department's program requirements, it should not be retained.
Our policies therefore require that departments identify property that is surplus to the requirements of a program, and then take steps to sell or transfer those assets; these are two distinct steps. After having determined that property is surplus to operational requirements, due diligence must be exercised prior to moving forward with its actual disposition, in other words, its sale or disposal.
The Treasury Board of Canada's policies identify two categories of surplus properties: routine and strategic. Routine disposals are generally smaller properties of a lower dollar value; they can be sold easily without any substantial investment. They are normally sold "as is" directly by the custodian department.
Strategic disposals, on the other hand, are properties with the potential to generate significantly enhanced value. Typically, they are sold to Canada Lands Company Limited, a federal Crown corporation that acts as the government's disposal entity.
[English]
However, with respect to lighthouses, our policies are in many ways superseded by the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, which establishes a distinct, standalone process for the disposition of lighthouses. As such, the administration of this program is assigned under the Act to Parks Canada and to the main custodian of lighthouses, namely the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
That concludes my opening statement, and I am happy to answer questions, but I believe my colleague from Parks Canada also has an opening statement.
The Chair: If senators agree, we will hear from Parks Canada before questions. Please go ahead, Mr. Ostola.
Larry Ostola, Director General, National Historic Sites, Parks Canada: Thank you very much. Good morning. It is a great pleasure for us to be here this morning.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for providing us with the opportunity to present this update about the implementation of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act.
[English]
When we appeared before the committee last April, we outlined for you Parks Canada's broader mandate and why it was selected to administer the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. We described the essential processes relating to the designation of heritage lighthouses. Today, I would like to give you an update on the current status of the heritage lighthouse program.
The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act came into force on May 29, 2010, and applies to federal lighthouses. It is, as you know, an act that originated in the Senate, and its overall purpose is to promote the conservation of heritage lighthouses, which it does in a number of ways.
The act establishes a process to designate heritage lighthouses. In order to be eligible for designation, the lighthouse must be administered by the Federal Crown at the time of designation. The act requires that heritage lighthouses, once designated, be reasonably maintained and that any alterations conform to national and international standards for conservation. If a lighthouse is sold or otherwise disposed of after designation, then the heritage character of the lighthouse must be protected after the sale through a clause in the sale agreement or by some other mechanism.
Finally, the act facilitates the sale or transfer of heritage lighthouses particularly to ensure an ongoing purpose for them. It requires public notice before they are sold. If the sale results in a new use that is not a public purpose, then there must also be a public meeting. This ensures the public is aware of any such disposal.
Parks Canada was assigned responsibility for the implementation of the act because of its significant expertise in heritage conservation. I am delighted to say that the year 2011 marks the one-hundredth anniversary of Parks Canada and its predecessor, the Dominion Parks Branch. It was the first government organization in the world dedicated to the preservation of historic sites and national parks.
Parks Canada's primary responsibilities under the act involve enabling and receiving public petitions, preparing heritage research in support of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada so that it can advise the minister on designations, providing advice to Fisheries and Oceans Canada on appropriate forms of protection for heritage lighthouses that are sold or transferred out of the federal inventory and assisting the minister with announcing designations.
The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act envisions important roles for the residents of Canada in identifying and protecting lighthouses with significant heritage value. The primary means for nominating a lighthouse for designation under the Act is by way of a petition that must be signed by 25 residents of Canada who are 18 years of age or older. Petitions must be received by Parks Canada during the two-year nomination period established by the Act, which came into force in 2010 and concludes in 2012; in other words, after two years time.
Parks Canada has developed a number of tools to help the people of Canada nominate the lighthouses they feel are worthy of designation. The program website, which is updated regularly, was launched in the fall of 2009 and a nomination package that contains essential information, instructions and a basic petition template is also available on the website or by contacting the program office.
We have disseminated information through letters to members of Parliament and senators, meetings with provincial and territorial tourism and/or heritage departments, telephone and email responses, the distribution of about 2,000 program brochures, the issuance of a press release and a national information bulletin, and responding to numerous media requests. The program manager, who is not here with us today, is currently attending community meetings in the Maritimes to inform interested citizens.
The essential policy tools are in place. These include the criteria for the designation of heritage lighthouses as well as for the maintenance and alteration of them. These criteria were approved by the minister in May 2010.
As of today, 40 lighthouses have been nominated for designation through the petition process. Petitions have been received from the Maritimes, Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. Through contacts with our offices we understand that there are other petitions being prepared in other regions of the country.
When Parks Canada receives a valid petition, we acknowledge its receipt and advise the petitioner of the next steps in the process. It is important to ensure that the petitioners are aware of the provisions of the act that pertain to surplus lighthouses, namely, that the minister cannot designate unless a person or body has submitted a written commitment to buy or otherwise acquire the heritage lighthouse and to protect its heritage character.
We are advising those proponents who are interested in the acquisition of potential heritage lighthouses to contact Fisheries and Oceans Canada as soon as possible to discuss the preparation of a business plan proposal for its acquisition, as that department is responsible for negotiating suitable commitments to acquire and protect a lighthouse. We continue to work closely with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to assist them.
As for the actual heritage valuation process, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada is presently considering the nominations for 10 lighthouses. As all of these lighthouses are surplus, Parks Canada will bring the board's recommendations to the minister once Fisheries and Oceans has concluded an acceptable commitment to acquire and protect for any of the lighthouses that may be recommended for designation.
While it is difficult to predict how long this process might take for a particular lighthouse, the Act stipulates that all petitions must have been considered and any resulting designations made by the minister by May 29, 2015.
In closing, as the one-year anniversary of the coming into force of the Act approaches on May 29, 2011, Parks Canada will place particular emphasis on receiving and processing petitions.
[Translation]
We will continue to work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for specific issues related to surplus lighthouses, and to support the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada by making recommendations to the Minister.
[English]
The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act presents Canadians with the opportunity to take action to preserve lighthouses of importance to them and to give these buildings an ongoing life in their communities. It is a privilege for Parks Canada to work with the many dedicated and visionary citizens who have taken up this challenge and are working with us to give these beacons a brighter future.
[Translation]
Thank you for the opportunity provided to us to inform you of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act's implementation.
[English]
I would be pleased to answer your questions.
Senator Cochrane: Thank you for coming.
To your knowledge, what federal funding programs are available to help people or groups with the costs associated with updating these lighthouses and turning them into successful ventures such as restaurants or museums?
Mr. Ostola: Parks Canada does not have any funding programs that would assist communities in their attempts to reuse or rehabilitate heritage lighthouses.
Senator Cochrane: Do you know of others that might?
Mr. Ostola: I do not know of any funding programs that are available to assist communities for that purpose.
Senator Cochrane: How many people does Parks Canada have on staff to deal specifically with this process?
Mr. Ostola: Our heritage lighthouse program office currently consists of two staff. We can call other specialists, such as Ms. Kell, as required to assist with the program. The two people I mentioned are the ones who are actively dealing with requests from the public. When we get petitions from the public, we contract out historical research, where warranted.
Senator Cochrane: Who pays for the research?
Mr. Ostola: Parks Canada pays for it.
Senator Cochrane: We heard from a group here yesterday that emphasized the importance of the community in this framework. They have worked diligently and cooperatively. It is too bad that there is no funding available to assist groups such as theirs. Everything they do is on a volunteer basis. They are not complaining or looking for funding, but it is regrettable that there is not something in place to assist other groups that might want to begin something like this.
Senator MacDonald: I will direct my question to both of you. Are there any criteria that you apply to maintaining the value of physical properties that the Government of Canada owns in Canada?
I am thinking of post offices and other obvious types of properties. These properties are always maintained to a certain standard, but there is quite a range in the level of maintenance of lighthouses, which are government property and belong to the people of Canada. Is there a policy or criteria that you apply to ensure that the Government of Canada maintains their properties to a certain standard?
Mr. O'Sullivan: Our policy on the management of real property requires that departments adopt a healthy life cycle approach to the management of their portfolio. That includes ensuring the prevention of rust-out, which would lead to more expensive repairs in the future. The department is required to undertake the repairs and maintenance of their properties in order to be able to respond to the program needs of the department and to preserve the value of the property.
Departments must determine what the program requirements are for properties in their portfolio, and then ensure that the properties that are essential to the delivery of the programs are properly maintained.
Senator MacDonald: We all realize that a lighthouse is not always in the best of environments with regard to staying in shape. Some of them are in pretty harsh environments.
From observations made while travelling around the country, I can suggest that our lighthouse have not been particularly well maintained. Can you respond to that?
Mr. O'Sullivan: The departments set priorities for the money that they invest in the maintenance of their properties. Typically at the top of the list would be requirements for health and safety purposes to ensure that there is a safe workplace for employees. You then go down to maintenance that is required to prevent the structure from collapsing, then to lower levels of priorities in terms of what needs to be done, going down to work that is done for purely cosmetic purposes. The departments set those priorities for their property, and it is their responsibility to exercise their best judgment in where they set their priorities and where they invest their money.
Senator MacDonald: Mr. Ostola, in your presentation, you mentioned that the Act requires that heritage lighthouses, once designated, be reasonably maintained and that any alterations conform to national and international standards for conservation. What if they were not reasonably maintained before being designated? What does Parks Canada recommend happens in a circumstance like that?
Mr. Ostola: From a Parks Canada perspective, as you can imagine, we are responsible for a great number of heritage assets that we directly administer, including a number of lighthouses. We invest and manage those to ensure that their fundamental heritage character is protected and preserved. That is one of the primary responsibilities we have as a heritage agency.
In the context of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, the maintenance and alteration criteria that have been adopted are essentially from a document entitled Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, which outlines a series of best practices related to maintenance and alteration. That is the standard we are suggesting be used by custodians of heritage lighthouses within the federal inventory.
Senator MacDonald: What about the lighthouses that are already designated to be national historic site and are already under the purview of Parks Canada?
Mr. Ostola: The same thing applies. We administer several lighthouses that are designated national historic sites, and we manage them and maintain them to ensure that their fundamental heritage characteristics are protected. We apply the standards I mentioned.
Senator MacDonald: We have a couple to bring to your attention then. Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Considering the two presentations, I am interested in exploring the responsibilities for surplus lighthouse structures that are not successfully protected under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act through the application process.
We only have about 40 to date. I think we are hoping there will be many more. Over 1,000 structures were designated as surplus by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans last year. We have 40, and maybe more for which applications have been made by community groups. I understood that there are 10, I think Parks Canada said, that may be designated under the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Therefore, we may have a number of structures that are not being taken care of.
I am directing this at our Treasury Board witnesses. You indicated that lighthouses are kind of being taken care of under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. What will be the status of the ones that have been declared surplus by a department, that have not been taken up by community groups and that have not been designated under the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada? What will happen to that perhaps considerable number of structures that are left out of those two avenues?
Mr. O'Sullivan: When I mentioned that the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act superceded our policies, that is simply in the sense that legislation of course trumps administrative policy. Our policy with respect to heritage properties remains and acts as a safety net for those that will not be captured by the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act.
Our policy requires that buildings that are more than 40 years of age be evaluated by Parks Canada for their heritage character. Parks Canada has its criteria for evaluating and designating the heritage character of buildings, and they have different categories that can be described by the witnesses from Parks Canada. In a sense, that is the safety net for lighthouses that are not captured by the process set out under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act.
Even when a department designates a property as being surplus to its operational needs, it has to undertake due diligence before disposing of that property. Part of that due diligence would encompass obtaining advice from Parks Canada on the heritage character of a building. That would be one of the factors to keep in mind before deciding on the possible disposition of that property.
It is helpful to look at the surplus designation and the eventual sale or otherwise disposition of the property in two steps. Fisheries and Oceans have undertaken a first step where they, in their judgment, determine what properties are necessary or not for their operational requirements. Then there is all the due diligence that has to be done before proceeding with the actual sale or transfer of the property. That includes, under our policy, taking into consideration the heritage aspects of the property.
The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act created a regime that has precedence over our policy, because it is legislation, but our policies remain, so the lighthouses not captured by the legislation will have our policy as a safety net.
The Chair: I would like to clarify. You said the act trumps policy.
Mr. O'Sullivan: Yes.
The Chair: The act now requires that the lighthouses would be disposed of by 2013. Yet, the outside date for the designation of them as heritage lighthouse properties is 2015. It seems to me that Fisheries and Oceans has thrown a grenade in the whole works by putting 1,000 on the table. Everybody is scrambling now under time constraints, and I want to make sure of the time lines here.
Mr. O'Sullivan: As I understand the act, all custodian departments, custodians of lighthouses, have a two-year period under which to list lighthouses that would be surplus to their operational needs. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has done so. It has listed them now. I have read the testimony from previous hearings of this committee, and I understand that you are surprised by the designation, to put it mildly.
A department makes the call on what is surplus to their needs based on the extent to which ownership of that property is required for the delivery of their program. There are some instances where a service or function can be undertaken in a given area without it necessarily being the property of the Crown. By analogy, look at post offices where Canada Post has moved away from owning the property wherever it offers postal services at a kiosk and has moved to having that service offered to Canadians in retail outlets. It is an imperfect analogy, but it makes the point that you can deliver a service in an area without necessarily owning that piece of property. I will not substitute myself for Fisheries and Oceans and the judgment that they exercise in determining what properties are surplus to their needs.
Nevertheless, there is a two-year period for the listing of surplus properties, and then there is the overall five-year period of the Act, ending in 2015, for the designation of heritage lighthouse properties. If some properties are being contemplated for sale or transfer to another entity, the legislation, as I read it, does not set out any limits to how long it would take for that disposition to take place, and that disposition could take place thereafter.
The Chair: I am still not entirely clear. Maybe others are.
Senator Nancy Ruth: There are two dates. He said 2015.
The Chair: If the work is not all done on a lighthouse by 2013, is that lighthouse disposed of by Treasury Board?
Mr. O'Sullivan: Treasury Board does not dispose of the lighthouses. It is 2012 that is the date for the listing of surplus lighthouses, and then the time frame for the designation of heritage lighthouses is five years ending in May 2015.
The Chair: It is real property. Never mind lighthouses. The act, as you say, trumps policy, and that requires that real property be disposed of within a three-year period.
Mr. O'Sullivan: Our policy indicates that when a property is designated as surplus to the operational needs of a department, that they should proceed with the sale within three years. That is sort of an indication to not dawdle and to do your due diligence. It is a policy that is often more easily recognized in the breach than in the — I forgot how Shakespeare put it — in the observance. We are pushing departments to manage their real property assets effectively, and that means not sitting on them for years and years after determining that it is surplus to their needs. They are making payments in lieu of taxes on it and maintenance costs and should be proceeding with disposition.
The three-year period is indicated as a policy requirement. Frankly, it is one that is not followed very often because the due diligence process can take quite a long time. For example, if there are legal arguments over the title, if title is not clear, if there are questions about encumbrances or rights of way or if there is requirement for consultation with Aboriginal groups. The due diligence required for a disposition can take quite a long time. Let us say the three years is more of an objective or target, but it is oftentimes not met. I would say actually most of the time it is not met.
The Chair: I interrupted Senator Patterson, but I thought it was important to clarify things.
Senator Patterson: That was helpful, Mr. Chair.
There is a distinct possibility that significant numbers of assets will not be taken care of by the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act or Parks Canada designating them as heritage assets. In that event, would the responsibility for disposal of the assets belong to the department that owned them?
Mr. O'Sullivan: Yes, the custodian department, yes.
Senator Patterson: You talked about routine disposals and strategic disposals. Is that just larger or smaller properties, or does "strategic" embrace other considerations such as sovereignty?
Mr. O'Sullivan: The vast majority of properties are routine. Strategic properties are the ones that have a potential through redevelopment for significant enhancement in the value for sale of the property in order to bring an interesting return for the Canadian taxpayer. An example would be CFB Rockcliffe where there are discussions with Canada Lands Company. The projects that are envisaged for the development of that property, which would significantly enhance the value of the property, have been in the media. That is handled by Canada Lands Company, which is a non-agent Crown corporation.
Basically, the land would be sold to Canada Lands, and Canada Lands then undertakes redevelopment. It deals with the municipality for rezoning. It deals with the province for any exemptions required. It deals with private sector partners for the development of the land in order to enhance the value of the land before sale. The profits from that sale flow back into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. A limited number of properties are actually strategic. How many are now strategic in the portfolio?
Shirley Jen, Senior Director, Real Property and Materiel Policy Division, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Right now, about 18.
Mr. O'Sullivan: Of the 25,000 properties of the Government of Canada, there are 18 deemed strategic for the purposes of disposal. It is a very limited number, and the vast majority of properties are deemed routine dispositions.
Senator Patterson: Of the routine disposals, what if that real estate is contaminated or has environmental contamination? We have certainly had a history of using mercury, baths of mercury, actually, in which lenses floated. What if the property has been neglected and has structural problems or the shoreline is eroding? You indicated in your presentation that they are normally sold as is. Does that mean that the custodian department has no responsibility to upgrade or clean up contamination before selling?
Mr. O'Sullivan: "As is" means that there is no redevelopment of the property before sale, which is the case for strategic property. As part of the due diligence for a property, a custodian has to identify all remediation that must be done for environmental purposes. That must be taken care of before it is sold. That is under the responsibility of the custodian department.
Ms. Jen: I might add that it is generally the policy of the Government of Canada, through this due diligence process, to have full disclosure in terms of information on the property. That would include the identification of any contamination and what remediation might be required.
There are options in terms of who does the remediation. It could be the custodian department prior to sale, or it could be factored into the negotiation with the purchaser. There may be some ability for the purchaser to undertake the clean-up, but the sale price would then be discounted, clearly. We would be saying that if the Crown, the Government of Canada, does not have to pay for the remediation, and it is something that could be done by the purchaser, therefore the sale price should be discounted accordingly.
Senator Patterson: Would these procedures be outlined in publicly available policy statements or regulations? What governs these procedures, please?
Ms. Jen: We have a directive on the sale or transfer of surplus real property, and it is posted on the Treasury Board website. It is publicly available.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for the presentations. They were very interesting. If someone puts in a petition for a lighthouse and the work has not been done yet to see if it is designated as a heritage site, is that work done before the final sale so the person buying knows it has been designated heritage?
Patricia E. Kell, Director, National Historic Sites Policy Branch, Parks Canada: The lighthouse can only be designated while it is still federal property, so the designation must happen before there is a transfer.
Senator Poirier: A person or organization that buys the lighthouse is obligated to keep it as a heritage site if it has been so designated.
Who will do the monitoring of that? Who will follow up on that so that 10, 15 or 25 years from now they do not turn around and sell it to someone who wants to tear it down and have a cottage built there?
Ms. Kell: They are not obliged to keep it as a heritage site. They are obliged to maintain the heritage character of the building. The use of the building could change. It does not necessarily have to be a museum or a tourist information centre. The use can change, but the heritage character, the physical fabric that makes it look like it does, like a lighthouse, will need to be protected.
Depending on the mechanism used to ensure that, the remedy, if it is not done, will vary. For example, if it is a clause in the sale agreement, then the agreement is a contract and the Crown would be able to sue the purchaser for not fulfilling that part of the agreement. One of the other common ways of achieving this is to seek a designation under municipal or provincial legislation, and then the remedies would be under those laws.
Senator Poirier: Parks Canada will be the organization or the entity that will be identifying or monitoring this to ensure it is respected.
Ms. Kell: The minister responsible for Parks Canada is in the Act as responsible for approving the form of protection that goes on the lighthouse as it leaves the federal inventory.
Senator Poirier: If someone buys a site that has been designated as heritage but that is pretty rundown, do they have an obligation to bring it up to a certain standard?
Ms. Kell: The short answer to that is, "not necessarily." The heritage character is defined based on what exists in the building at the time of designation. It makes it clear what work you would do, but it does not necessarily define a state that it must be in.
Senator Poirier: I am throwing out numbers without knowing what the actual retail value is, so we are assuming here. In and around 1,000 properties have been declared as surplus from the Department of Fisheries. For example, after the exercise is completed, just for the point of clarification, here, say 500 out of the 1,000 are designated heritage. Say out of that 500, 200 or 250 end up being sold, but there are another 200 out there that are designated as heritage and have not been sold. Does Parks Canada automatically, because they are heritage, take them over?
Mr. Ostola: I could add perhaps a few details on that. While we have been referring to the 1,000 properties on the surplus list, and this could probably be clarified with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Parks Canada has typically used an estimate that 450 of those are what most people would think of as a lighthouse. That is the number we are most focused on — the buildings that are really the iconic structures that Canadians would think of as lighthouses. That is the group that we feel are most likely to be petitioned. It is unknown at this point how many of them might eventually be designated as heritage lighthouse, but, in the event that they are not designated, Parks Canada will not take those properties on.
Senator Poirier: If they are designated, will you take them on?
Mr. Ostola: No, we will not.
Senator Poirier: If they are not sold, and Parks Canada does not take them on but they have been designated as heritage, they will be destroyed?
Mr. Ostola: They will remain in the federal inventory with the custodial department.
Senator Hubley: You were speaking of the number 450, and I believe in your presentation you mentioned that, to date, 40 lighthouses have been nominated for designation through the petition process. We only have a year to go. Do you feel that we will be able to reach that number of 450 lighthouses having heritage value within a year?
Mr. Ostola: We have never set a target in terms of the number of petitions that we expect. We are expecting that they will continue to come in during the second year of of the program. Personally, I would not think that we will receive petitions for all 450 lighthouses that I mentioned, but probably some proportion of that. I could not say exactly how many. That is unknown. Certainly, that is not the assumption that we have had. That is the potential universe, but I am not suggesting that petitions will definitely come in for all of those.
Senator Hubley: From our study, we have had great support from communities for their lighthouses. I am wondering why there are so few. Forty does not seem like very many, given that there is only a two-year window to work in, and already one year has passed. I am wondering what sort of communication or outreach has been done to ensure that communities are aware of this and the possibility of taking over their lighthouse. I have a sense that it has not quite hit home to many communities as yet.
Mr. Ostola: We have been in the first year of the coming-into-force of this act. There was an initial effort to ensure that awareness was raised among Canadians. We think we have accomplished that, to a great extent, and we are anticipating that more petitions will come in during the second year.
In my presentation, I mentioned some of the vehicles we have used to inform Canadians, whether it is communications with MPs and senators, or whether it is discussions with provincial and territorial authorities, the distribution of program brochures, websites or responses to media inquiries and inquiries from the public. We also deal at the grassroots level with a group that I think you are familiar with, the consultative group that supports the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, and they have been getting the word out through their network as well.
In addition, our program manager, as I mentioned earlier, is this week in community meetings in Atlantic Canada that are designed to continue to get that word out, and there may be a possibility that he will participate in further meetings to get that word out as well.
Senator Hubley: Where is he meeting in the Maritimes? In what provinces? Do you know?
Ms. Kell: This week he is in Nova Scotia. There were three locations for meetings. I believe it was Yarmouth and Sidney, and I am not sure what the third one was.
Senator Hubley: The other issue is that there is still the need for the light. We have heard that over and over. This process seems to be moving away from the initial use of a lighthouse, and that is debateable. We see great possibilities in tourism. We have had examples here that are really quite marvellous of communities and sometimes an individual making a great difference and being able to get funding.
It takes time. All of these things take time. For tourism to get on board, recreation and even education, all of that will take time. We need to have some sense that we value these structures, that they are important to our stories, and that we can have a system that will give the greatest opportunity to see them preserved. Thank you.
The Chair: I have a supplementary question. Is the year cast in stone? I ask that because the website mentions not only a petition but a commitment. A commitment involves a business plan. We have already heard there is no money in government, and people are looking for ways of funding. That is a lot of work to be done by a local area that does not have expertise and does not have access. That is why I ask if the year is cast in stone. It seems to me that we are rushing to judgment here, and we need to give the people who are interested in doing some good some time in which to do it.
Mr. Ostola: From our perspective, the act is quite explicit in terms of the dates that it identifies. There is a two-year petitioning period during which the public must submit petitions related to the designation of heritage lighthouses.
The Chair: The act would have to be amended.
Mr. Ostola: If there were some issue with the dates, yes. Then there is a period until 2015 that the minister has to actually designate heritage lighthouse.
The Chair: Bringing the act before Parliament would be tantamount to bringing the Constitution back, probably.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I wanted to ask about the Canada Lands Company. When the property is sold to Canada Lands, I assume they may have to do some renovation or restoration, but they resell it to the public. What happens to the profit, and what kind of percentage is the profit, or is there a profit?
Mr. O'Sullivan: Properties are sold by a department to Canada Lands because they have been identified as having huge potential for redevelopment and increased value before a sale outside of the government umbrella. The work that is done by Canada Lands is, first of all, all the remediation that must be done and whatever remaining due diligence has to be done before sale outside of the federal realm. More importantly, it is the rezoning and then the partnership with other developers for the actual redevelopment of the property, usually for commercial and residential use. The whole point is to make a profit. The profit is then shared between Canada Lands, because that is one of its sources of revenue for its operations, and the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the general revenue fund for the government.
Ms. Jen: Before these strategic disposal properties are sold to Canada Lands Company, the custodian department is required to circulate amongst other public jurisdictions, municipalities, the province, to solicit and to see if there is any public use interest on the part of those jurisdictions. Custodian departments are also required to consult with Aboriginal groups to see if there are any rights or interests that they might have because of treaty requirements, for example. As Mr. O'Sullivan had mentioned, there is a fair amount of due diligence work that needs to go into providing enough information on a property before it is sold, even to Canada Lands.
The point I wanted to make about the circulation to other public jurisdictions is that part of a strategic disposal, the purpose of it, is also to determine if the department can try to fulfill other public policy objectives. That might be, for example, if a municipality has a particular requirement for a piece of that property on this property that has been identified as a strategic disposal. A municipality can put up its hand and say, "You know what? I really need a piece of that property in order to have an easement, because I am proposing to do such and such a thing." There are no guarantees and no promises, but the custodian department should be factoring those kinds of considerations into its final disposal strategy.
Generally, because of the value of these strategic properties, they come before the Treasury Board for consideration. It would be the Treasury Board in that case that provides the approval of the sale. It is up to the custodian department to develop, for lack of a better word, the post-sale program for the property.
As Mr. O'Sullivan said, you might have a strategic property, and then the department might find out that there is this bona fide and legitimate requirement from a municipality, and a portion of it might be required to fulfill a legal duty towards Aboriginals, but then the balance of the property can be redeveloped. The custodian has to put that all together in a disposal strategy, and then it is brought forward. Generally they come to the Treasury Board because of the value, and then the Treasury Board makes the decision.
Canada Lands takes that strategy and executes it. In other words, they kind of have their marching orders in terms of how that property will be allocated once it has left the federal inventory.
Senator Nancy Ruth: In your example, if a municipality wished to have an easement and wanted 20 or 30 feet on the run of the land, do they have to pay for it?
Ms. Jen: I do not know if there is a clear yes or no answer to that. Generally speaking, our policies require that sales be justified in relation to market value.
Senator Nancy Ruth: The taxpayer is paying twice for the same land?
Mr. O'Sullivan: In the discussions for public use, and our policies provide for this, market value is sort of the starting point. If you are getting into a discussion with other levels of government, or even organizations that are undertaking to acquire property for a public use, then our policy provides for sale at a nominal value, i.e., a dollar in the most extreme example. A public use of a property is a factor in determinating the sale price in those circumstances, to avoid the problem you are mentioning.
Senator Nancy Ruth: When you were talking about Canada Lands going into partnership with other companies to do the renovation, to make them into condos or whatever you are doing, as an example. Would there be a separate corporation set up between the developer or whichever business is interested and Canada Lands? You said the money, the profits, went back to Canada Lands.
Mr. O'Sullivan: I mentioned that. There is one model, P3s, which may involve setting up a standalone corporation for the purposes of the management of the project. In most cases, Canada Lands partners and does not necessarily do it by establishing another corporation because, as a Crown corporation, there are limits on what it can do.
Senator Nancy Ruth: They do not stay involved in the management of the property, usually.
Mr. O'Sullivan: They are involved in the development of it in view of sale to the public, or sale outside of the Crown. That development, as I said, leads to the profits which in part finance the ongoing operations of Canada Lands, with the rest going back into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Senator Murray: Mr. Chair, it is too early in the morning to be disagreeable, even for me.
The Chair: Work on it.
Senator Murray: I have always been a fan of Parks Canada. I will say that quite openly. Generally, I am even well disposed towards Treasury Board.
Mr. O'Sullivan: Not many people will say that.
Senator Murray: We have a lot of experience, those of us who are members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, with Treasury Board.
I do have to say, because I think my friends in Cape Breton would insist on it, that you should know that the snow removal in the Cape Breton Highlands National Park this winter has not been what it used to be. Indeed, the north mountain, as Senator MacDonald knows very well, has been closed to traffic to an unprecedented degree. There is a lot of sympathy for the people down there because they think you have been starved for funds. However, I think it is safe to say that in the weeks and perhaps months to come, there will be more snow, and it is not too late to get the snow blowers and ploughs up there.
I wish I could speak as positively about Fisheries and Oceans Canada. This issue arises from the statement that you have made, and it has been alluded to earlier. The minister can only designate a surplus lighthouse if there is a business plan and so forth before them, and you are advising the proponents to get in touch with Fisheries and Oceans Canada as soon as possible to discuss all this.
I would have a lot more confidence if I knew for sure that you, Parks Canada, have the last word on this. The act says "minister" means "Minister of Parks Canada." I do not know why you are telling them to get in touch with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. You ought to have the last word on whether the plan is up to scratch.
Mr. Ostola: The reference to Fisheries and Oceans is really to ensure that proponents who are interested in acquiring surplus lighthouses deal with the department that has the custody of those lighthouses to develop that business case. For example, we are not aware of what the situation on the ground might be for a DFO lighthouse in some regions of the country. It would be their people on the ground who would be best placed to help the local community group or individual work on the details of that business case. That is why that reference was in my remarks.
Senator Murray: I am intrigued by your statement that of the thousand or so properties, which is almost all the active lighthouses, that the minister of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have declared to be surplus to their requirements, you think 400 odd are real lighthouses. How did you come at that? Was it in collaboration with Fisheries and Oceans that you arrived at that, or did you make the determination yourselves?
Mr. Ostola: As I think was mentioned earlier, we are responsible for something called the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, which advises federal departments and agencies with respect to the heritage character of the properties they are responsible for administering. Over time, the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office has reviewed 450 lighthouses for their heritage character, and that is where that number comes from.
Senator Murray: Do we have that list of 450?
Mr. Ostola: I would think you do.
Ms. Kell: We can provide that.
Senator Murray: That would be helpful.
The Chair: We will distribute it.
Senator Raine: My notes say that historically, according to DFO, there were 264 staffed lighthouses in Canada, 10 of which have been fully transferred or divested to another federal or provincial government, private organization, community group or municipality. My interpretation of that would be that what we consider a lighthouse would include housing for staff, so we are probably looking at 264. Personally, I have not seen any comprehensive lists from anyone that would indicate a ranking, starting with Peggy's Cove down to the light on the stick. It would be helpful if someone in the heritage business in Canada could provide that to us.
Mr. Ostola: Perhaps another piece of information you might be interested in is that in terms of number of lighthouses that have been examined by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, I mentioned 450. It is interesting to note that, of that number of 450 in terms of what is still in the federal inventory, because over time some have been disposed of in various ways, but 20 have been rated as classified, which is the highest level of heritage recognition, and 128 have been identified as recognized. Of that 450, 20 are classified and 128 are recognized. The category "recognized" indicates a somewhat lower value. That is a bit of a benchmark for you.
The Chair: Just on the point of information, could you give the clerk whatever information you can as soon as possible? We have to start to write a report at some point.
Mr. Ostola: I have to point out that there are criteria that are used to evaluate federal heritage buildings. These 450 I have mentioned have been evaluated according to historical and architectural factors and so on. The criteria used to evaluate heritage lighthouses, of which I believe you have a copy, are somewhat different. They are similar but different. They look at the history of the place and its architectural values, but they also look at the community values associated with the property. That is just a little bit of a nuance.
Senator Murray: Unless I am misunderstanding the testimony, I think this information, in whatever detail you can furnish it to us, will be of enormous assistance to us and to potential petitioners also.
Since you have raised it, of the 20 odd that are in the highest category, I suppose most of them, if they are active lighthouses, have been declared surplus to the requirements of DFO, have they?
Mr. Ostola: Unfortunately I do not have the list of properties with me.
Senator Murray: If they are in such a high category, absent a petition from a citizen's group, what do you do? You are not interested in taking them over yourselves, are you?
Mr. Ostola: We cannot.
Senator Murray: You are not interested. You could, but you cannot. You do not have the resources, do you?
The Chair: It is all going into snow removal.
Senator Murray: Touché.
Ms. Kell: Parks Canada administers 12 lighthouses, of which five are national historical sites. We already do have some.
Senator Murray: What are the other seven? Five are national historic sites.
Ms. Kell: Of the others that we administer, one is classified, and two are recognized. They are Prince Edward Point Lighthouse, Flowerpot Island Lightstation, Fisgard Lighthouse, Portlock Point Lightstation, Active Pass Lightstation, East Point Lightstation, Capefield Lightstation, Pachina Point Lighthouse and Carmanah Point Lighthouse.
Senator Murray: It would be interesting to know on what criteria that was done and when it was done, but I do not want to get off on a tangent here.
I inherited this brief, if you will, from Senator Carney, and I am doing my inadequate best to carry it during the time that is left to me here. She told me that somebody told her that the identity of the petitioning groups is protected and cannot be disclosed because of privacy concerns. Can that be true? This is supposed to be a public process. It is almost akin to saying the names of bidders on public property, or contract people submitting tenders, are protected. Have you consulted the privacy people about that?
Mr. Ostola: All of the aspects of the process itself, like how the public petitions, what is required, the steps involved, the information and so on, is all public. All of that is public. However, petitions the public actually submits to us often have contact information, which includes their name, address, telephone number, email and so on. The legal advice we have received indicates that that information cannot be made public. If individuals choose to reveal that information, that is entirely up to them, but the legal advice we have indicates that that information should be kept private.
Senator Murray: I appreciate that, but there must be a way that we could get at this. I take very seriously the privacy of one's telephone number and address and all the rest of it, but, without disclosing personal information, there must be a way we could identify groups in whichever location.
Senator Raine: Surely it would be possible when people submit an indication that they would like to petition that you send them back a form asking them to allow their group's name to be disclosed on the website. That would be very helpful for them, and I cannot imagine anyone would object. As long as you are covered with a piece of paper, I cannot see a problem.
Senator Murray: There must be a way around it.
Senator Raine: It is frustrating for the consultative committee not to know. They need to know that information. To withhold it from them is ridiculous.
Senator Murray: Maybe the way to test it would be by putting in an Access to Information request and taking it from there. However, that takes time.
The other issue Senator Carney has raised is that of national security considerations. Her apprehension is that there are a number of lighthouses, particularly on her coast, that would be of great interest to people who do not wish Canada well, or who are or might become involved in criminal or terrorist activities.
What is your approach to that? How do you guard against that in the sale of important properties?
Mr. O'Sullivan: One of our policy instruments is the Guide to the Management of Real Property. It has specific provisions about taking into consideration any possible potential danger to the public, safety or security that could come out of the properties. Those are oftentimes properties indicated for that purpose, such as laboratories, prisons and special purpose reinforced structures. Custodian departments are supposed to consult with the local police forces on the issue.
That is a part of the due diligence done before the disposal of the property. Part of the due diligence is the verification of whether those security concerns require preventing the sale of their property, or the demolition of the structure in question, or the alteration of the structure in question to remove that security concern.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. I think we are might need to have a second session with you because we need some more information and we might have to come back to you again.
I am from British Columbia and we have a unique situation there in that we have 27 staffed lighthouses, many of which have heritage value. I understand they have not been declared surplus at this time. However, it is clear to us that the Coast Guard is pushing to de-staff. Our recent report was totally against that.
Somewhere between the moving of the asset from a department that does not really want them into Treasury Board or Canada Lands Company, they do fall into disrepair. We have seen what happened to the ones de-staffed in the Maritimes 20 years ago. They are almost at the point now where the cost to rehabilitate them is beyond any community group.
We need to have something happen to recognize the heritage value and provides some funding for that. I also recognize that Parks Canada does not have the money to do that. A solution has to be found because the public in our country treasures these light stations; they want them most of them preserved in some form.
Parks Canada, is it possible for you to share with us the heritage listing as to which lighthouses are the most precious that we should concentrate on? Then, is it possible to come up with a game plan for each and every one of those to coordinate with their communities to see what can be done?
Mr. Ostola: We would certainly be happy to provide you with the evaluation list done through the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, which will speak to what I mentioned earlier; namely, that list of 20 classified, which is the highest level, and the 128 recognized lighthouses. That will give you a sense of how they rank.
Senator Raine: With that list in hand, does Treasury Board have any ability to call DFO to find out what state those buildings are in and what remedial action would be necessary to bring them up to some kind of proper maintenance level?
Mr. O'Sullivan: As I said in my opening remarks, there are some 36,700 buildings in the federal real property.
Senator Raine: We are just talking about lighthouses.
Mr. O'Sullivan: We have a team of six people.
Senator Raine: You should say "no" if that is your point.
Mr. O'Sullivan: No, we are not in a position to micromanage departments' real property holdings, including DFO and the lighthouses.
Ms. Jen: We consider it the responsibility of the custodian department — in this case the Department of Fisheries and Oceans — because we do require them to report on the condition of their assets. They actually should have this information at hand. I would suggest they might not have it in great detail, but they should be able to provide you with some information on the particular 20 lighthouses in question.
The Chair: We will have another meeting on this. We have invited the minister to come on March 3. Presumably, the Parks Canada people would come back with him. Perhaps Treasury Board and DFO could come at the same time.
Senator Raine, I just mention that meeting on March 3 because the "guns are loaded" outside the door.
Senator Raine: It is obvious to me that the Heritage Lighthouse Act has put some deadlines on and everybody has to put some resources forward to resolving these issues. If we do not have the money in the government coffers to look after lighthouses in this country that mean a lot to people, we need to set up some kind of organization to assist.
Mr. Ostola, is there any mechanism in Parks Canada's heritage department for setting up a foundation and going out to the public to fundraise to save the lighthouses?
Mr. Ostola: There is currently no mechanism of that type to do that.
Senator Raine: Is there any interest in Parks Canada in setting up some kind of organization like this, being aware that other countries do this?
Mr. Ostola: There are organizations in Canada dedicated to heritage, such as the Heritage Canada Foundation, which is based here in Ottawa. It might be interested in proposals of that type.
The Chair: I will have to draw the meeting to a close at this point. However, we will go back at it again on March 3. We can explore that subject then.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming.
(The committee adjourned.)