Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To cut to the chase on this, the biggest issue, quite frankly, will be the change of the words from “related structure” to “related building”. The reasons behind this are twofold.
First of all, Monsieur Blais, it's to establish the heritage value of the lighthouse itself and any buildings that have significant heritage value. For instance, many lights have a lightkeeper's house. Some are attached to the lights, some are separately built on the islands and have significant heritage value. Other light-station houses are brand-new and really don't have any heritage value. There may be utility sheds. In some cases there may be Quonset huts, which certainly have no heritage value, at least at this time, but they do have value in maintaining the integrity and the ability to keep that light there. The first point is on the heritage value.
The second point is to allow community groups--or DFO, in the cases of lights that will continue to be maintained by DFO--the ability to maintain these structures, in the case of wharves or helipads, with reasonable cost. If we went back to rebuild some of these wharves as they were traditionally built with old timbers or spruce timbers, or non-treated non-Wolmanized wood, we would be forever maintaining these wharves. We need to have the ability to separate the heritage value of the light and any related buildings. In some cases there are foghorn buildings and other buildings that have true heritage value. There are other buildings that are newer and quite frankly don't have that same heritage value.