Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 9 - Evidence - March 3, 2011
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 3, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 8:33 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: I call to order this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Welcome, everyone. We are public, and this meeting is being recorded. I am Bill Rompkey, the chair of this committee. I will ask the others to introduce themselves.
Senator Raine: Senator Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator Cochrane: Senator Cochrane from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Hubley: Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Poirier: Senator Rose-May Poirier.
The Chair: This will probably be our last meeting, so handkerchiefs may be worn and used, though not too extensively. We will have to begin sifting through information after this morning.
Today we will hear from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I gather they would like to make a presentation. We also welcome the representatives from Parks Canada, who have been with us previously and who enjoyed it so much that they wanted to come back again. We also have representatives from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
We now also welcome Senator Murray from Pakenham, Ontario, who has just joined us.
I would like to hear from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, but I caution you that we must be out of here by 10:00 a.m. We will fight to retain the room, but they will probably win eventually. I suggest that we go directly to questions after DFO because we must have answers to some questions. They have been enumerated for us, so please get on the list and try to get the answers to those questions.
Ms. Huard, please begin.
Michaela Huard, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning and thank you, everyone.
[Translation]
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to be here today to address Fisheries and Oceans Canada's role in the preservation and protection of heritage lighthouses.
[English]
The management of lighthouses within the department includes a program function for a system of aids to navigation within the Canadian Coast Guard and a divestiture component when lighthouse structures are no longer required by the program. With me today is Jacqueline Gonçalves, Director General, Maritime Services, Canadian Coast Guard; and Andrew Anderson, Senior Divestiture Analyst, Real Property, Long Term Capital Management.
[Translation]
I recognize the importance of traditional lighthouses and the role that they have played in the development of our nation. These are historic structures in maritime communities where they are located. Our main goal with respect to heritage lighthouses is to facilitate the preservation of as many of these historic structures as possible and ensure that these sites remain open and accessible to Canadians for generations to come.
[English]
For this reason, our existing lighthouse divestiture program focuses on facilitating transfers to community-based interests with mandates for heritage preservation. Indeed, in 1995, the department received authority from Treasury Board to transfer active lighthouse properties to these organizations for $1.
The practice of divesting active lighthouses was reactive in nature and started with an expression of interest from local stakeholders. Since that time, about 25 operational lighthouse properties have been transferred. Many of those have been further developed to leverage tourism potential. Many of the active lighthouses on the list of surplus lighthouses for the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act have been managed as active disposal sites for many years. As an example, the iconic lighthouse in Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia, was declared surplus in 2000, further to an expression of interest from the province.
In 1995, there was no requirement to provide a list of lighthouse properties for potential alternate ownership. The coming into force of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act changed that, and the department published the list of surplus lighthouses on May 27, 2010, in compliance with the act.
To better understand how lighthouse properties with active aids to navigation can be identified as surplus, it is necessary to create a separation between the program function, which is the light inside the lantern; and the real estate, which is the land, tower and associated infrastructure. It is the real estate that holds the heritage value.
Due to advancements in modern technology, the department is seldom required to own the real estate to support an aid to navigation. Even for active lighthouses, program needs can often be met through the retention of a right of access to service the equipment at the top of the tower.
The framework that applies to the management of all the department's fixed aids to navigation provided the rationale for the development of the surplus list. The application of this framework indicated that approximately 1,000 fixed aids to navigation, including the skeleton towers and simple structures, are considered surplus to the program needs of the department. Over 400 of those lighthouses are traditional-style lighthouses with active aids to navigation, with some level of heritage value.
Since publishing the list last year, Fisheries and Oceans Canada identified inaccuracies in the information about lighthouses no longer required for the department's operations. To address this, the Canadian Coast Guard carried out a further assessment of all lighthouses on the list. As a result of this examination, the active list has been reduced to 473 and the inactive list will be reduced to 68. The department is committed to continuing to review and update the list as required under the act.
[Translation]
Since the bill's passage, departmental officials have been working closely with officials from Parks Canada and the Department of Justice to develop a common approach to implementing the act.
Our regional real property officials have been provided with tools, guidance and information to assist petitioning groups. This includes the development of a website, a business case template and a regional contact list, all designed to provide information, contacts and tools to Canadians. We are fully committed to facilitating the protection and ongoing public accessibility for as many lighthouses as possible through the provisions of the act. Although the act contains no source of supplementary funding, as our contribution, we are able to commit limited funding to improve the condition of lighthouse properties as part of the divestiture process.
Since 1995, communities such as Goderich, Ontario, Matane, Quebec, Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, Souris, Prince Edward Island and Vancouver, British Columbia have successfully acquired their historical landmarks and many more are willing and able. The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act has the potential to accelerate this well-established practice and provide communities with important opportunities to exercise direct control over the future of their local heritage. The act will provide added protection to the heritage character of lighthouses selected for designations and will ensure that the Canadian public maintains ongoing access to sites of historic significance.
[English]
Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials are prepared to serve the needs of the petitioning groups interested in seeking heritage designations for Canadian lighthouses and will endeavour to ensure that the spirit and the intent of the act is upheld throughout the process.
That is the end of my statement. I thank you for your attention, and, along with my colleagues, I am prepared to take questions.
Senator Raine: Thank you. I wanted to start by asking if you have all read the previous report that we did on the de- staffing of lighthouses.
Ms. Huard: Yes. It is more of a concern to the Canadian Coast Guard program function than it is on the real- property side of things, but yes, it has been read.
Senator Raine: At this point, any de-staffing is in limbo.
Ms. Huard: Yes.
Senator Raine: I am from British Columbia, and we still have 26 or 27 operating, staffed lighthouses, some of which would have great heritage value. I want to ensure that those lighthouses are also being considered for their heritage status as well as being staffed.
Ms. Huard: We have not declared those lighthouses surplus because obviously they are still staffed and because of the ongoing review now about that. They have not been declared surplus at this point.
Senator Raine: I must say that the list is somewhat complicated. I understand the list has now been pared down to more or less what we would consider traditional lighthouses with towers and other buildings as opposed to beacons.
Ms. Huard: Yes. I will let Ms. Gonçalves talk about the details of that review, but the purpose was to review it to determine those that were more traditional. The definition is quite broad in the act, but that was the purpose of the review.
Senator Raine: The staffed lighthouses in British Columbia are not on this heritage list.
Jacqueline Gonçalves, Director General, Maritime Services, Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: The staffed lighthouses are not on the surplus list. However, my understanding of the way the act works is that petitions can still come forward to have those lighthouses declared for heritage purposes. While they are not surplus, you are still able to petition to have them declared as heritage.
Senator Raine: Would it be possible to put a list together that identifies the light stations, both staffed and de- staffed, along with the other information that you have on the current list for British Columbia in particular? This could be circulated to all those people who have expressed an interest in the heritage aspect of lighthouses in British Columbia.
Ms. Gonçalves: Yes, we can prepare the list.
Senator Raine: I understand you have been gathering a list of contacts, so there are names of people who are interested in heritage lighthouses in British Columbia.
Andrew Anderson, Senior Divestiture Analyst, Real Property, Long Term Capital Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: We have provided information to the consultative committee that was formed to support the minister for parks in disseminating public information about the act, so we have provided some information to Parks Canada. I believe they are more responsible for ensuring public outreach and information about the act.
Senator Raine: Following along that line of thought, as a group, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and you people are not doing any proactive outreach to those concerned people. I thought I understood you to say that one of the things that you were doing was compiling a registry of contacts about lighthouses.
Ms. Huard: We have arranged for people in our regional office to be contacts for people who are looking for information. I believe that our colleagues in Parks Canada have also been working to get information out there. We have our website. If someone calls, we know whom to direct them to or who can give them the information they require to begin the petitioning process or to understand more about what is involved or what lighthouses are on the list. That is on our website. Yes, we do have people in our regional office who are prepared to answer those questions.
Senator Raine: There is no contact list per se.
Ms. Huard: If you mean a contact list that we are keeping of people who are waiting to get information about a lighthouse, I am not aware that we have a list of people looking for that. If people call and ask us for information, we respond to that directly. If they are looking for the heritage designation or the criteria, we would refer them to Parks Canada. If it is information about what the process is, what is declared surplus, what they have to do around the divestiture plan, then we have people in our regional offices prepared to answer those questions.
Senator Raine: I cannot wrap my head around the threat of de-staffing that is still hanging over the lighthouses of British Columbia. There is no doubt about that. There is a ticking time clock on this process of declaring lighthouses surplus, and the clock is running out. We are now less than two years before the time is up for petitioning to save a lighthouse.
Ms. Huard: If someone wants to petition for a lighthouse that is currently staffed and is not declared surplus, they can come forward and petition that.
Senator Raine: However, those lighthouses are not on your surplus list.
Ms. Huard: They are not on the surplus list, but they can still be designated.
Senator Raine: How would a person who decides they want to adopt a lighthouse even know that they exist?
Ms. Huard: I would suggest they look at our website, contact our regional office, say that they are interested in the petitioning process and go through the petitioning process. It is not surplus yet, but it can be designated without being surplus.
Senator Raine: If it is designated two months before the deadline is up, they do not have much time, do they?
Ms. Huard: They have the period that is provided in the act, until May 2012.
Senator Raine: What happens if all of a sudden, a few months ahead of that, they de-staff all the lighthouses in British Columbia?
Ms. Huard: One of the reasons we went with such a broad list at the beginning was to give people maximum opportunities. We were aware of this concern. I am not able to speak to the issue of de-staffing lighthouses, but we were aware that that was an important issue.
We did not put those as surplus, but they can still be petitioned. Someone who is interested in petitioning to have a lighthouse designated as a heritage lighthouse may do that now, even if it is not declared surplus. If it was suddenly declared surplus, they are ahead of the game; they will have done their petitioning. I do not dare speculate what might happen there.
Senator Cochrane: On the same subject, even after the 2012 deadline, can you still petition DFO for a surplus lighthouse?
Ms. Huard: They cannot be petitioned. The period of time under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act is prescribed. However, we have this process that has been ongoing for 15 years, which is reactive. If someone came to us and said that they would like it, we are still prepared to declare it surplus.
They can go through the regular process that we have been working on with Environment Canada over the last 15 years. That process will still exist. The period of time under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act is limited, but the regular process that we had beforehand will continue to exist; they would have that outlet.
Senator Cochrane: I will be very specific. Will that regular divestiture process still be in effect after the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act deadline?
Ms. Huard: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Emery would like to ask a supplementary question.
Claude Emery, Analyst, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament: Can a lighthouse be designated as a heritage lighthouse if the deadline has passed?
Ms. Huard: I will turn to my colleagues in Parks Canada who have been handling this for us in the past.
Larry Ostola, Director General, National Historic Sites, Parks Canada: Yes; there is a two-year petitioning period from May 2010 to May 2012, but under the act — and I do not have the wording in front of me — the minister has the possibility of designating a lighthouse to be a heritage lighthouse.
Mr. Emery: If a petition is not submitted before 2012, is there a possibility for a designation?
Mr. Ostola: Yes.
Senator Poirier: I think it was to everyone's surprise, the number of lighthouses that were put on the list. I do not think anyone expected that. Can you tell me, when you started the work on deciding which lighthouses should be put on this list, how that process was done? How did you come up with such a big list? How long did you take to evaluate that, and when did that process start?
Ms. Gonçalves: We began to look at our entire inventory of lighted fixed aids as soon as the act was brought into force. The definition within the act is quite broad. When we applied it to all of the lighted fixed aids in our inventory, the decision was made to err on the side of caution to ensure that we did not lose sight of any complex structures that most people would see and define as a lighthouse.
The initial set of lighthouses that were put on that list in May 2010 included active and inactive lighted fixed aids. All of them that you would consider a lighthouse are on that list. However, because of the broad definition, we also included simpler structures that could possibly be considered lighthouses by the community.
The list initially was quite long. Since then, we started to note that there were inaccuracies in the list. As Ms. Huard mentioned, that triggered a more extensive review of what was actually on that list, based on the database that we had. We have since updated the list, based on that extensive review. We found that many inactive structures of a simple nature did not fit the intent of the act. Therefore, they have been taken off the list. We also found a number of inaccuracies. For example, some complex structures had already been transferred, and therefore should not be on the surplus list. There were a couple of instances of that.
Between May of 2010 and a few days ago, we did the review and updated the list. Most of the ones that would have dropped off the list are on the inactive side; they are really simple structures that would not affect the core of the structures in which communities would be interested. We are in the process of providing more details on that.
Senator Poirier: That concerns me a bit. If you are saying that you did work in seeing what was surplus out there, you should have realized ahead of time that some of these had already been transferred or should not have been on the list from the start.
I am curious; was there a list already existing of what you had in lighthouses in Canada at one point in time, and you just took that list and said here, this is the list? It seems to me someone in the department would have gone out and done that work to see what was surplus and was not needed. Then before you made the list, you would have known which ones had already been transferred or were no longer there. Obviously, that was not the case because you had to revise the list. I would like your comments on that.
Ms. Gonçalves: We were under time constraints to ensure that the list was up by May 2010, as was demanded by the act. We used the information that we had at hand in the databases that we use to manage our aids. Most of our focus was on those active aids in which the communities would be most interested.
We did a close verification of that, but we failed to do an in-depth review of those that had already been transferred. There are only a few instances of errors on that side. Then, of course, there are all of the inactive aids that we had very little information on because they had been declared inactive for quite some time.
Senator Poirier: From my understanding, I thought the department had two years prior to that to get ready. Are you saying that you did not have much time?
Ms. Gonçalves: I think there was time to look at the information, and there was an initial run-through to ensure that the ones that were of most interest to communities were appropriately listed on the surplus list. Many of the changes that you will see in the revised list are on inactive structures on which we did not have much information.
Senator Poirier: I have not seen the revised list, so either I have missed it or it has not been sent to us.
Ms. Gonçalves: It has been posted on our website. We are in the process of providing the committee with an explanation of the changes from the May 2010 list to the one posted a few days ago.
Senator Poirier: Knowing that the Senate committee has been working on this for quite a while — I have been with the committee for a year, and this has been the main subject for the last year — when revising the list, did the department consult with the committee staff or chair or committee members at any point to get our input on the revised list to see what we were aware of?
Ms. Gonçalves: I do not believe that was done, but I will let Ms. Huard speak to that.
Ms. Huard: No, I do not believe that was done. Our efforts had been to do as you suggested, to confirm with our regional people what we had; our databases gave one piece of information, and to go out and get as accurate information as we could.
Senator Poirier: At this point, are you confident that there are no others on that revised list that have been transferred or no longer exist? Are you comfortable that the last revised list is the accurate one?
Ms. Gonçalves: Yes, I can say that we are pretty comfortable. However, I cannot guarantee that we will not find another instance of a community coming forward to say that they have an interest in a lighthouse and we find out that it is not in our inventory. Although I am highly comfortable that the list is pretty accurate, I cannot guarantee that that will not happen.
Senator Poirier: In your presentation, you mentioned that the department was there to help out with any aid that they could to anyone interested in petitioning. Is there any financial aid from your department, or through the Canadian Coast Guard, to help out any of the communities that would be applying to bring some of these lighthouses up to par where they should be — painting et cetera?
Ms. Huard: I will let Mr. Anderson provide the details on this. DFO is the second largest custodian of properties in the federal government; we own thousands of things and must maintain them. We have a very limited budget for it. However, we have a small program called Invest to Divest that helps us with divestitures. It depends on the number of requests we receive and other priorities. Therefore, that very small program that has approximately $1 million does not go a long way when we are talking about these things. I am aware of that. However, that is what we have to put forward to help. We look at business cases, since people may be asking whether there is something we can do here or there.
Most of what we have with respect to maintaining facilities has to go toward health and safety concerns. We have to ensure staff will be safe as they service the light more so than painting it or providing some aesthetic benefits. If we have a business case and people approach us saying, "We are prepared to take this on, but we need some work done,'' we are happy to talk about it. However, we have limited resources.
Senator Poirier: At our last meeting, we had presentations from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The lady from P.E.I. said that before they took over one particular community lighthouse, which is successful at this point, the Canadian Coast Guard, CCG, came in and did some maintenance. In that way, at least the organization taking it over did not have to do that work; it was already done. Therefore, it was easier to sell to the community.
Do you know through CCG if that is something they would be willing to do or have the ability to do if other people make requests for minor renovations or upkeep?
Ms. Gonçalves: We do not have funding to upgrade a structure for which we no longer have a program requirement. However, depending on the negotiations between the department and the community groups wanting to take over the structure, sometimes things can be done simply because those things already fit in with the plans for that structure. I cannot give a precise answer, but there are sometimes opportunities, depending on the situation in the particular community.
The Chair: The $1 million that you allude to is a total budget; there is no other CCG budget, apart from the DFO budget. We are talking about a total of $1 million.
Ms. Huard: Yes. Some years we might be able to scrape together a bit more, but that is approximate.
Senator Hubley: Welcome. Under Treasury Board's directive on the sale or transfer of surplus real property, federal custodians of surplus real property shall conclude the sale or transfer of properties within three years of formal notification of the property being surplus to program requirements. For lighthouses declared surplus on May 29, 2010, and for which no petitions for heritage designation are submitted by the deadline of May 29, 2012, does the three-year rule apply?
Also, can or will all such lighthouses be disposed of after May 2012, and must all eventually be disposed of, or can they remain in the inventory of DFO indefinitely?
Ms. Huard: I mentioned Peggy's Cove. We declared that surplus 10 years ago. Perhaps I should answer this question without my colleagues from Treasury Board in the room.
Our aim is to do it within three years to meet the policy. However, we clearly have had examples of not being successful in doing so within that time period; it still remains in surplus. We are continuing our efforts.
Will they be disposed of afterwards? If lighthouses are surplus, we really do want to help groups take over these lighthouses. That is why we went so broadly in getting as many on the list as surplus to give people the opportunity to do that.
They can remain in our inventory. However, from a priority perspective, it would be beneficial if people came forward and took them over.
Senator Murray: Mr. Chair, I would not want to sound triumphant or be naive or churlish, but I think we are making some headway here last week and this week. I wanted to see whether my modest optimism is justified.
I would like to follow up on Senator Raine's questions about de-staffing. There is a freeze on de-staffing, is there not?
Ms. Huard: Yes, the minister has frozen that. There is the report and the response to the report. I do not have any other details, as it is not my file. Ms. Gonçalves, is there anything to add?
Ms. Gonçalves: Yes, the minister has received this committee's report and is considering it at the moment. We will be replying to it in due course. Once that is concluded, a decision will be made.
Senator Murray: It would take a ministerial decision to unfreeze it, then.
Ms. Gonçalves: It could possibly be a Government of Canada decision, also. It will depend on the response. It is not our area, as officials.
Senator Murray: I understand that.
You told us that you have pared down the list of surplus lighthouses; the active list has been reduced to 473, and the inactive list will be reduced to 68. What are the others considered? Are they no longer considered surplus; are they off the surplus list?
Ms. Gonçalves: They were either miscategorised initially or are inactive structures that have long since disappeared; they are no longer in our inventory. They would have been in the category of simple structures that would either have been disused or taken down. They are not in the category of the types of structures in which you are interested.
Senator Murray: The types of structures that we are interested in is the very area I wanted to get at. We are interested in paring down the list to what is realistically considered heritage and worth saving, so we can then have a good list and help the public, at least with information, to petition for and to take ownership of the lighthouses.
Of the previous list, over 400 of them were traditional-style lighthouses with active aids to navigation and some level of heritage value. That number is now 473, is it?
Ms. Gonçalves: Yes, it is.
Senator Murray: The inactive list has 68.
A week ago, Mr. Ostola told us that they had looked at 450 that are still in the federal inventory. He said, "20 have been rated as classified, which is the highest level of heritage recognition, and 128 have been identified as recognized. The category 'recognized' indicates a somewhat lower value.''
I do not know whether we have the list of those 20 classified and 128 recognized. It appears we do have that list now. Good, that is a big help.
I would like to think that Parks Canada, DFO and even Treasury Board are working from the same information and the same list and that you are agreed on all this.
The Chair: They all seem to be nodding.
Senator Murray: Let the record show nods with various degrees of enthusiasm.
Senator Raine: Is this the list of all lighthouses evaluated by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office as of February 2011?
Senator Murray: That is it. We have a list of 20 classified and 128 recognized across the country. You are all agreed, are you?
Ms. Huard: Absolutely.
Senator Raine: Does this list include lighthouses that have already been disposed of or transferred to other people for heritage purposes?
Mr. Anderson: There are two or three heritage designated lighthouses for which we have signed purchase and sale agreements this summer. However, the deed of transfer might not have officially passed on to the new group yet.
Senator Raine: I see here "Point Abino, Ontario, disposed, classified, private, City of Fort Erie,'' so that is on the list.
Mr. Anderson: It was evaluated and given a heritage designation through Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office, FHBRO; however, that property was disposed of to the municipality over five years ago.
Senator Raine: I know that. However, the list that I am looking at has those types of lighthouses that have been disposed of, and they are highlighted in yellow. Bois Blanc Island Lighthouse is now owned by Parks Canada. It would be nice to have a province-by-province list that shows the most valuable lighthouses, then the ones that are being looked after already and also the ones that we want to save. That way, we can go out proactively and alert the public that there is a desire to save these lighthouses.
Senator Murray: We want a list of properties that are eligible for designation under this act.
Senator Ringuette: Does that make sense? Maybe we should ask the people from Parks Canada.
Mr. Ostola: There are 450 lighthouses that have been evaluated by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office. Twenty that are deemed to be classified, which is the highest recognition of heritage value, remain in the inventory; another 128 are recognized.
That is where the reference to the 450 comes in. You should have received a list of those 450 lighthouses that were evaluated by FHBRO as a follow up to the last time we appeared. The list indicates the geographic location of each one of those lighthouses.
The Chair: It was distributed yesterday by email.
Senator Raine: I hope you do not mind me pursuing this as a point of interest. The Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site of Canada, in Louisbourg, is recognized but not classified. It belongs to the Canadian Coast Guard. I am confused. That is an iconic structure in a highly developed tourism destination, yet on this list, it does not look any different from the other 128 that are recognized.
Mr. Ostola: The Louisbourg lighthouse that you are referring to is separate from the Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site of Canada administered by Parks Canada. That is the historic eighteenth century French town and fortress. The lighthouse is on the opposite side of the harbour and continues to be administered by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Senator Raine: Therefore, that lighthouse is surplus to CCG needs, and to your knowledge, no one petitioned for it.
The Chair: We visited Louisbourg, and a group wants to take over the lighthouse. Senator MacDonald is more familiar with it than any of us. In that particular case, negotiations are ongoing.
Senator MacDonald: Lighthouse Point in Louisbourg is part of the national historic site. The lighthouse is not on the fortress side of the harbour. However, the national historic site itself spans the harbour.
Senator Cochrane: Mr. Shields, earlier this week, the president of the Prince Edward Island Lighthouse Society appeared before us. She mentioned that you will be in Prince Edward Island next week with a colleague to address questions that local people have about the petition process. I was happy to hear about that because that is what is needed. How many of these meetings have you had so far, and where have they been?
Norman Shields, Manager, Heritage Lighthouse Program, Parks Canada: We have had three meetings in Nova Scotia: One was at the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic in Halifax; one was with many municipal officials from different municipalities around Digby; and one was in Sydney.
Senator Cochrane: Have you had any others than those in Nova Scotia?
Mr. Shields: We started with Nova Scotia. Prince Edward Island is next. We have been working with a woman from New Brunswick. We are a little bit stalled there; however, I am confident that those meetings will go forward in New Brunswick as well.
Senator Cochrane: What has the public participation been like at these meetings?
Mr. Shields: The public participation has been good. We did not know what to expect. We obtained key individuals from lighthouse societies, tourism groups and municipalities. They asked their questions and received clarification.
Senator Cochrane: Are there particular aspects of the process that people in the communities are finding unclear or confusing?
Mr. Shields: I cannot say that there is any one thing. The questions in each meeting have been different. However, it has been useful for them to have someone in the room to ask questions to directly.
Senator Cochrane: This is why it is a really good process. Will this be taking place in British Columbia as well?
Mr. Shields: I am available to go to whatever province requires it.
The Chair: How does that work? Do they ask you to go, or do you ask them if you can come?
Mr. Shields: We have been working with the consultative group to plan the meetings. Barry MacDonald has been instrumental for the Atlantic coast. We are not sure if there is the same benefit to be had in travelling to the British Columbia coast. There might be a different way to address those questions for British Columbia.
Senator Cochrane: Can you add anything else about what you have been seeing and learning from people?
The Chair: Senator Poirier has a supplementary.
Senator Poirier: In New Brunswick, there is no society or organized group, which concerns me. We had a presentation from a very dedicated person the day before yesterday. Some nice ones, such as Cape Jourimain Lighthouse, should be saved. Will you reach out to New Brunswickers through municipalities, existing parks, the province or some contact to ensure that they receive information if it is available?
Mr. Shields: We are actively working in that direction already. We are in close contact with our counterpart in the tourism and wellness ministry for the province who has been working directly with the community groups that Ms. Loughery described. We are in contact with another woman who worked in the lighthouse preservation movement. We were working through her to plan the community meetings. There are health issues that slowed us down; however, I am confident we will get there.
Senator Poirier: As of today, are any meetings set?
Mr. Shields: No.
Senator Poirier: Will you provide to the committee a list of where they will be and at what point they will be held?
Mr. Shields: I would be happy to do so. No dates or places are finalized. We are still working on that with Mr. MacDonald.
Senator Poirier: Thank you. The time frame is getting shorter as we speak.
Senator Cochrane: May 29, 2012, is not far away.
The Chair: Underpinning this is the question of money, which we have not spoken about except for the $1 million of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Before we close, we have to talk about money.
Senator Patterson: That is what I wanted to ask about, Mr. Chair; thank you. This is directed to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We visited many lighthouses in Nova Scotia, where de-staffing took place a number of years ago. I must say that it was sad, if not heartbreaking, to see the neglected conditions of those facilities. We saw rust on the stairwells, broken windows and crumbling concrete. Even at Peggy's Cove, it took an awful fuss to get the lighthouse painted recently. At Low Point Lighthouse, the shore was visibly eroding before the lighthouse. We met with a community group who operate a museum nearby. They are hopeful of including the lighthouse in their museum society but are totally daunted by the prospect of dealing with the erosion problem. I was heartened to hear the statement by Ms. Huard that DFO is committed fully to facilitating the protection, et cetera, for as many heritage lighthouses as possible.
Is it not true that since lighthouses were de-staffed in Nova Scotia, there have been no significant capital expenditures on those lighthouses?
Ms. Huard: Perhaps I should have added that we have limited resources. I am limited by the resources I have for maintaining all of our properties. As I mentioned, we have roughly 8,000 properties under DFO that include laboratories, offices, wharves, et cetera. I have to do what I can within the existing resources. The vast majority of our work is ensuring the safety and security of our people or the public when there is reason for them to be on DFO property.
In terms of aesthetics, when we do our priority setting, unfortunately we do not have enough resources to take care of all the needs and demands. We have to look at what we can afford to do in consideration of our expected outcomes as a department. I will let Ms. Gonçalves talk about the aids to navigation and what they are doing in that program. We must consider whether we are still able to use the lighthouse in its function as an aid to navigation. I would love to have the money to do the aesthetics, but unfortunately I do not have.
Senator Patterson: Recognizing the shortage of funds, if you were to take on the task of facilitating the protection of heritage lighthouses, as you said to us this morning, would the vehicle to do so be an enhancement to the Invest to Divest program that you described earlier? Would that fund stop the shoreline eroding, which I do not think is a cosmetic issue. Is that the vehicle that we should recommend for enhancement if we are to ask CCG to do this job?
Ms. Huard: There are probably a number of ways that it could be done. The Invest to Divest program is an attempt to reduce the footprint of what we need for program requirements. The whole spirit of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act did not provide for any resources because it could not; but the whole idea was to try to gather interest from the private sector to preserve the heritage.
I was struck by an element in the testimony before the committee the other evening about Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency's, ACOA's, work on setting up a foundation. There are other means. I understand the concerns of the community about where the money comes from. Whether the federal government, the provincial government or the private sector should step forward with funding for tourism reasons or other reasons, I believe there are other options.
The Chair: To follow up on that, I was not at the last meeting when there was some talk of a foundation. Would there be any impetus from one of your departments? Let us begin with Parks Canada. Has any thought been given to setting up a foundation of some sort?
We batted around certain models, such as Ducks Unlimited Canada, which seems to work very well. It is a non- governmental organization, NGO. I do not know much about it. Has any thought been given to that? Have you been proactive in trying to facilitate some sort of non-governmental funding to help with this?
Mr. Ostola: If I recall correctly, this or a similar question was raised at our last appearance before the committee. At the time, I responded that there is an NGO dedicated to heritage conservation in Canada, the Heritage Canada Foundation. I cannot speak for them, but I believe they engage in a variety of fundraising activities to further their objectives.
I do not know what the response would be if they were asked the question; but it seems that might be one non- governmental vehicle through which some of those objectives might be achieved.
The Chair: Do they have a connection with your department?
Mr. Ostola: No.
The Chair: They have no connection whatsoever.
Mr. Ostola: They do not report to our minister or anything.
The Chair: They receive no funds from you.
Mr. Ostola: No.
Senator Patterson: Budget 2007 included $5 million over two years to create Canada's national trust to protect lands, buildings and national treasures. Parks Canada reportedly did work on the concept. Might that possibly be a vehicle for undertaking tasks for restoration and seed money for heritage lighthouses?
Mr. Ostola: The senator is correct: Budget 2007 provided some seed funding for the potential creation of Canada's national trust. We did quite a bit of work over a couple of years in consultations with our provincial and territorial colleagues and had meetings with various grassroots groups such as other trusts and foundations across Canada involved in natural and cultural heritage. A great deal of concern was expressed with the potential for creating a new body that would somehow compete with many existing organizations for a very slim piece of the funding pie. As a result, the idea was not pursued.
Senator Patterson: Do you still have the $5 million?
Mr. Ostola: I would have to check to see whether we have it, but I suspect that we do not have it.
The Chair: It would be nice to know that for certain. Can you let us know?
Senator Raine: I was looking at the website of the Heritage Canada Foundation. Did you say that it no longer exists or that it is no longer funded?
Mr. Ostola: The Heritage Canada Foundation exists and is based in Ottawa.
Senator Raine: Are they funded?
Mr. Ostola: I believe they have an endowment fund from which they draw some operating revenue. I believe they engage in a variety of fundraising activities, memberships and so on. There have been occasional contributions for meetings and such things but no ongoing funding.
Senator Poy: I want to clarify something, and I have a few questions.
Are all lighthouses on the surplus list de-staffed?
Ms. Huard: We have put only de-staffed lighthouses on the surplus list. Those that are still staffed are not on the surplus list.
Senator Poy: A community might come forward with a petition to express interest. The population of some of these communities is very small. If a community of three people came forward, would you consider their request?
Ms. Huard: The act requires that a minimum of 25 people petition a lighthouse.
Senator Poy: A very tiny community cannot do it.
Ms. Huard: That is right, unless they find others in the community or nearby communities interested in heritage. At least 25 Canadians older than 18 years must sign the petition.
Senator Poy: From what I have been hearing, there is really no funding. Therefore, these 25 people will have to come up with the money to renovate and maintain the lighthouse; am I correct?
Ms. Huard: If they petition it for designation, we are expecting that they would put forward a business case stating that they would be prepared to take it over. They would have to meet the requirements of the act. Perhaps my colleagues from Parks Canada want to add more.
Senator Poy: What is the basic requirement for funding? How much money do they need to raise just to put forward the petition? Then how much money would they need per annum to maintain a lighthouse?
Mr. Ostola: I can perhaps speak to the first part of the question, though not the second. I do not know if there is any real financial requirement to develop a petition and send it to us. That would just involve getting the appropriate number of signatures.
I will defer to my colleague in terms of annual costs and so on.
Ms. Huard: It depends on the lighthouse, the condition of the lighthouse, how easily accessible the lighthouse is and how big it is. I could not possibly estimate what it would be, generally. It would be done on a case-by-case basis.
Senator Poy: What if they wanted to turn it into a tourist attraction? Would that be fine with your department?
Ms. Huard: Yes, though they are required to maintain the heritage characteristics.
Senator Poy: It would just be the building; they cannot decide that they really want to have a lighthouse keeper there, can they? They cannot reverse that, can they?
Ms. Huard: The lighthouses that are staffed now are not on the surplus list.
Senator Poy: They cannot reverse it, is what I am asking.
Ms. Huard: I am trying to think of all the possibilities there. I think there are just too many elements for me to be able to tell you precisely.
They cannot ask for a lighthouse. We would have to look at the program needs. If we do not have a need to have a lighthouse keeper there, it is not like that they will suddenly have someone there.
Senator Poy: The chances are that these communities would want it either as a tourist attraction or a museum, or even a community centre.
Ms. Huard: Yes, it would be some sort of cultural place.
The Chair: Senator Poy brings up a good point, namely, that it is all very well to submit the application to have it designated a heritage lighthouse, but you also need to have a business plan. That is what is scaring many people away. That brings us back to the whole funding question again. However, it is not simply the funding question but also access to expertise to help people do that. It is a barrier to application.
It would be useful if we clarified the disposal policy once and for all. Senator Carney brought up in her testimony the whole question of fair market pricing. How will the lighthouses be disposed of? Can you get them for $1, or will you have to pay the million dollars that DFO has in their budget? Who decides?
Ms. Huard: I will turn in a moment to Mr. Anderson to provide more detail. However, I did mention in my remarks that we have had the authority from Treasury Board to transfer the lighthouses for $1 for a number of years now.
The Chair: Can any lighthouse be transferred for a $1?
Ms. Huard: Perhaps Mr. Anderson can talk about some of the examples.
Mr. Anderson: Not necessarily all lighthouses can be transferred for a $1, but all lighthouses that still have active aids to navigation can be, which are most on the surplus list. We would have authority to transfer those properties to designated priority interest groups, such as municipalities or not-for-profit heritage conservation groups, for a nominal value of $1.
It would not allow us to transfer properties to private organizations or individuals for $1. The fair market value principle would apply.
The Chair: If someone wanted to set up a bed and breakfast, as has been done, that would be considered a business, fair market value would apply, would it not?
Mr. Anderson: It depends on the ownership model. I think you heard about the West Point Lighthouse bed and breakfast. It is owned by a not-for-profit corporation, so they would be eligible to receive the property for $1.
The Chair: It depends on who is applying, then.
Mr. Anderson: It depends on the ownership model. If it was proposed that the property be owned by a private, for- profit business, the market value principle would apply.
The Chair: The rich man must go through the eye of the needle; he has to pay. However, a not-for-profit, a cooperative or whatever can get it for $1.
Mr. Anderson: That is what we want to focus our existing policy on. We have not transferred or sold any lighthouses on the open market to private individuals for many years. We are very much focused on nominal-value transfers for heritage conservation purposes.
Senator Poirier: I will use Cape Jourimain Lighthouse, as an example. It is in New Brunswick, if coming from P.E.I. Let us say that no one comes forward for that lighthouse, which should be a heritage one, as far as I am concerned. No groups apply for it, but there is a private organization out there. He or she might be interested in buying it to run their own private business, to make a cottage out of it or whatever they want.
Even though you know in your mind that it should be heritage, would you sell it in the open market?
Mr. Anderson: Under our existing lighthouse divestiture program, we would not consider that as a possibility. We have been having ongoing discussions with the Cape Jourimain Nature Centre, which is the non-profit organization that currently runs the site, and the Province of New Brunswick. We are hoping to reach a joint solution to transfer that property in the near future.
Senator Poirier: Let us not use Cape Jourimain as an example. If there is another lighthouse out there, how would you react to the same scenario that I gave?
Ms. Huard: I think Mr. Anderson said that we have not done it for many years since our emphasis is to get it to non- profit organizations. I cannot think of circumstances where we would.
Senator Poirier: I am wondering if anyone could come up to you and say, "I know there is a lighthouse in such and such a place and no groups are interested in it. You have it on your list as surplus. Can I buy it? I want to make a cottage with it.''
Mr. Anderson: Not right now. While the petitioning period of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act is in effect, we are not considering applications from private individuals for private use.
The Chair: Some of these instances must have happened before because there is a lighthouse in Quirpon in Northern Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, which is used as a bed and breakfast and operated as a private enterprise. That must have happened before the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act came into effect.
Mr. Anderson: We actually still own that property. That is done through a leasing agreement with the group that runs the bed and breakfast.
The Chair: Let us get at the lease issue. We talked about buying and selling, but we did not talk about leases. Tell us how leases work. Who can lease and who cannot?
Mr. Anderson: We can certainly offer operating agreements through leases for any of our properties if groups want to establish complementary uses such as restaurants or interpretive centres or bed and breakfasts onsite.
However, for a property designated surplus to operational requirements, our first priority is to divest the property in accordance with Treasury Board policy.
Senator Poirier: If someone wants to lease for a private business, who is responsible for upkeep? Would that be the person who leases, or does the department bring it up to par before it is leased?
Mr. Anderson: The scope of work and the responsibilities of the tenant and landlord would be identified in the lease agreement.
Senator Poirier: There is no pattern or template that you follow such that, if you are leasing out a building, you will provide X or Y.
Mr. Anderson: In the leases that we have now, the tenant is typically responsible for ongoing maintenance. Those responsibilities are accounted for in the amount of rent that we charge for the site.
Senator MacDonald: If you transfer a property to a non-profit organization, will that transfer be a $1 lease, like a 30-year lease, or a complete transfer of the property? If it is a complete transfer, what would prevent them from taking the property and selling it to a private enterprise?
Mr. Anderson: Typically, it would be a full transfer. In instances where we transfer the property for $1, there is a clause in the transfer agreement that also specifies the market value of the property. If they resell the property within a specified time frame for a profit, then we can claw back that amount.
Senator MacDonald: Does the lease or transfer only apply to the light station, or does it apply to all the ancillary properties such as the lighthouse keeper's house? These light stations often have many buildings erected on them.
Mr. Anderson: It could be both. It usually involves the entire site. As you say, the ancillary buildings for complementary uses, such as restaurants and bed and breakfasts, are actually more valuable than the tower itself. They are all done on a case-by-case basis. Certainly any building on the site could be included in the lease.
Senator Murray: First, would someone please send us a glossary of acronyms so that I can read this document?
Second, I am sure it exists in writing, so would you let us have an explanation of the criteria for classified and recognized, especially recognized? I would like to see that.
Third, Senator Raine drew my attention to an item on the Heritage Canada Foundation's website that states that the Seal Island Lighthouse in Nova Scotia is deteriorating and while there is a local group that wants to acquire it, they are being blocked by Treasury Board policies. What do you have to say about that?
Marc O'Sullivan, Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: I would be interested in knowing what policies are blocking that sale.
Senator Murray: Do you not have any information about it?
Mr. O'Sullivan: No.
Senator Murray: As Senator MacDonald would know, there is an enormous amount of traffic over the Seal Island bridge. Everyone wants to go to Louisbourg or the Newfoundland ferry or whatever, and I would think it would be quite an attraction.
Senator Raine: I am starting to get the feeling that because some of these beautiful, old lighthouses and towers are deteriorating, especially in the Maritimes, the cost of taking them over is substantial, and the cost of perhaps keeping them up to historical standards would be an even greater hurdle.
My devil's advocate question is, would it be better for a group that is interested in saving their lighthouse to wait until it goes past the deadline and then acquire it for a dollar as a non-historic lighthouse? They are then not tied by the red tape of having to maintain a structure to historical values, when perhaps they do not know what those are. It would impede them from adding a ticket booth, for instance, because that would not be historic.
Ms. Huard: I will turn to my colleagues from Parks Canada for that question. However, I would be concerned; the spirit of the act is trying to preserve the heritage character of the lighthouse.
Mr. Ostola: I would completely agree. It would depend on the motivation of the group behind it, but my understanding of the spirit and intent of the act would be to try to save iconic structures that represent the maritime history of Canada and the heritage features associated with them.
Senator Raine: We had testimony from people from P.E.I. who were telling us how they have done a great job. It is obvious that they are using their lighthouses well, and because they are actively being promoted for their tourism attraction as well as their heritage value, they will probably survive. However, if you took the lighthouse keeper's dwelling and expanded it from four rooms to twelve rooms so that it could be a viable bed and breakfast, for example, that would is not allowed under heritage guidelines. However, it makes ultimate common sense. I wonder if you have comments on that.
Mr. Ostola: It would depend on the types of modifications they were planning on making to a given structure. For example, if they were talking about demolishing certain parts or using plywood on the exterior instead of using the shingles that would have been used on some lighthouses, that would be a challenge from a heritage perspective.
The Chair: We are running short on time. Before I go to Senator Poy and Senator Patterson — I am not sure how important this will be for the future — we experienced what we described as the silo effect. These lighthouses are operated by CCG. They are under the budget of DFO, but they are used by other people, some of whom pay and some of whom do not. The Government of Canada as a whole has no overall policy. Is there ever a meeting of minds among the various departments of the Government of Canada that actually make use of the lighthouses that are owned by CCG? Does Parks Canada, DFO, Treasury Board and Environment Canada ever sit down together and talk about this?
Ms. Huard: Absolutely. There were many discussions during the development of this act. I was not in this position at the time, but I recall hearing of discussions between the various agencies with respect to this. It is a question of ensuring that each of us understands our individual goals, what we can contribute to it and what we can do. In fact, on a day-to- day basis, I believe there are discussions between Parks Canada and DFO about issues that come up as a result of this.
Shirley Jen, Senior Director, Real Property and Materiel Policy Division, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: I would add that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, as part of its function, facilitates a number of interdepartmental committees, such the Treasury Board Advisory Committees on Real Property. We have one at the assistant deputy minister level, another at the director general-director level and a number of working groups as well, depending on the subject matter at the time or the priority that has been brought up by the various custodian departments.
The Chair: One of the problems we came across was that many people were using the lighthouse, but DFO was paying for it. I do not know if your working groups discussed some sort of overall financial support or any payment policy for services rendered, but that was an issue that we experienced.
Senator Poy: Just to follow up on what Senator Raine said, it can be costly and difficult to maintain a heritage structure. I would like to follow through with a group, say 25 people, who have come forward and obtained a lighthouse for $1. A year or two down the road, suppose they do not have enough money to maintain it or to renovate it. Suppose further that another person has enough money to do that. Can it be transferred to that person for $1 so that they can use private money to renovate? If that is the case, is that deductible from his or her income tax?
Ms. Huard: I am sure we are not experts on the Income Tax Act, but I will ask Mr. Anderson to deal with the first part of the question.
Mr. Anderson: I do not know about the tax implications. However, if the property was initially transferred to a not- for-profit community group for $1, market value would be established at the time of that transfer. Let us say, for example, it was $50,000. If they were to turn around and resell the property to a private interest in the next couple of years, they would be contractually obligated to repay us the original market value of the property, so that would certainly be a disincentive to do that.
We want to encourage these groups, and this is why we are asking for business cases. It is to help them understand what their obligations will be so that their decisions to take these properties will not be based solely on emotion and that they understand the obligations.
There are other funding opportunities; sometimes provincial tourism departments are supportive. We have seen instances, once these groups acquire properties in Atlantic Canada, of ACOA providing business development. Once the property is in a group's hands, it can open up other doors for ongoing maintenance expenses.
Senator Patterson: CCG witnesses spoke about the long-standing practice of transferring surplus lighthouses before the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act came into place. Could surplus lighthouses be transferred in this manner up to 2015, between now and the deadline under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act? Could it still be done?
Ms. Huard: I do not see that it could not because it will continue in that fashion after the petitioning period, after the period of time under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. I do not know if there is a benefit one way or the other. I am not sure if there would be a benefit to doing it under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act versus the other manner.
Senator Patterson: While the time frame is ongoing, could you not still do it?
Mr. Anderson: To clarify, are you wondering if we could still divest the lighthouse through the regular divestiture program while the provisions of the act are in effect?
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Mr. Anderson: Yes, we could. As Senator Raine was mentioning, there are two tracks now for a community interest to acquire a lighthouse. They can choose to follow whichever one they feel is in their interest.
Senator Patterson: Parks Canada's primary responsibility under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, in addition to receiving the petitions, is to prepare heritage research in support of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada so that you can advise the minister on designations. For non-surplus federal lighthouses, is historical research immediately initiated once a petition is received?
Mr. Ostola: Yes, for a lighthouse that remains in the federal inventory and for which a petition is received, the research would be carried out and would be evaluated by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.
Senator Patterson: If it is a surplus lighthouse, do you wait to receive an indication from DFO that a business plan has been submitted before initiating research?
Mr. Ostola: Yes, we do. We have a strong collaborative relationship with our colleagues at DFO. We want to ensure, in terms of carrying out the research and the cost associated with the research, that they are getting a strong signal on their end that there are interested proponents who are serious about acquiring the property in question.
Senator Patterson: Would that historical research be available to the public?
Mr. Ostola: I do not see why it would not be. I do not know at what point in the process.
Mr. Shields: Typically, reports for the board are protected until the minister signs the board's recommendation. They are available once the minister has reached his decision.
Senator Patterson: This question is to DFO. The directive on the sale or transfer of surplus real property of the government requires quite a bit of work before an asset is declared surplus. Custodians have to provide interested parties with sufficient information, including legal risk analysis on title, whether a duty to consult with Aboriginal groups exists, the property's environmental and physical condition, archaeological and heritage findings, risk to wildlife habitat and market value of the property.
Was all that work done for the lighthouses that your department has declared surplus?
Ms. Huard: We refer to those as our due diligence activities that we have to do. Perhaps Mr. Anderson can respond on whether we have done that for all of them. I expect that it is probably done as they come in.
Mr. Anderson: Right; certainly, for some of them, it has been. Typically, predisposal due diligence activities such as those are carried out after the property is declared surplus to operational requirements. However, many of the lighthouses on the active surplus list have been managed as active disposal projects through the regular program for many years. Therefore, much of the environmental work and survey and title work has already been completed for a substantial portion of them.
Senator Patterson: We heard from former senator Pat Carney, who was one of the sponsors of this bill, along with our colleague, Senator Murray. She felt that some lighthouses might be of great interest to people who, as she put it, do not wish Canada well. That is, people who are or might become involved in criminal or terrorist activities.
Has DFO or another department considered the security implications of the lighthouses that have been declared surplus?
Ms. Huard: There are policies on security. With respect to lighthouses specifically, can you respond, Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson: That is a standard part of predisposal due diligence, namely, that a security assessment must be done before the property can leave the federal inventory. It is usually done after the property is declared surplus; for most of the lighthouses on the list, it has not been done yet.
As part of that, we would consult with departments that have national security as a mandate, such as National Defence or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to determine whether they have an interest in the property.
In previous lighthouse disposals, when we do our security assessment, it has not been seen as an issue. Security questions under the policy are typically oriented toward properties that have a bunker-type or reinforced nature, such as a penitentiary or a military installation, and the lighthouse properties do not meet that requirement.
Senator Poirier: For all the lighthouses that have been declared surplus, are they all on DFO-owned land? If not, if a community applies for one or petitions for one, does the transfer of the land it is on automatically go with it? Does that group have to find the means of negotiating their own transfer to keep it on that land, or do they have the cost of transferring the lighthouse to another location?
Ms. Huard: I do not know if all of them are on DFO-owned land.
Mr. Anderson: Most of them are on DFO-owned land; and when the tower is transferred, the land would be transferred along with it and included in the nominal value price. There are some that are on leased land or on properties that have reversionary rights back to provinces or former owners. Those issues of access and land ownership need to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis as part of the transfer process.
The Chair: I would like to take a few minutes because this will probably be the last time that we get together before we get to Mr. Emery's report. Perhaps senators could stay put for a minute.
In the meantime, I want to thank you for coming.
(The committee adjourned.)