Evidence of meeting #24 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was structures.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
I call the meeting to order.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, March 11, 2008, the committee will now commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-215.
The preamble and clause 1 are postponed, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), and I call clause 2.
Mr. Keddy, do you want to move your amendment, G-2?
(On clause 2--Definitions)
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Absolutely. Mr. Chair, I don't think we're going to have a lot of discussion on this, but I'll move right to the amendment.
I move that clause 2 of Bill S-215 be amended by replacing line 9 on page 2 with the following:
this Act, and includes any related building
As it reads now, it says
this Act, and includes any related structure
Conservative
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I've realized that Mr. Keddy's amendments virtually all concern the same subject.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I'd like to get a better understanding of the amendments Mr. Keddy is introducing, and for him to say exactly how they will change or improve the present enactment. I understand the words used, but I don't understand the idea behind all this.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
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.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Thank you, Mr. Manning.
May I ask our witnesses some questions at this point?
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
The lack of funding is one of the problems that will cause people to speak out against the bill as it stands. You can't disagree twice as much about something, but you can disagree more. Our idea can be reinforced when we disagree. Mr. Keddy's amendment reinforces my idea because it's as though we were adding other facilities or infrastructures that will eventually have to be maintained.
Is that correct?
Patricia Kell Director, Policy and Government Relations Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency
This amendment would remove structures from the bill. The number of infrastructures that must be maintained would thus be reduced, not increased.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Do Mr. Keddy's amendments reduce the $65 million amount? Does that amount remain the same?
David Burden Director, Divestiture, Real Property, Safety and Security, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
If I've understood correctly, the amendment moved by Mr. Keddy today includes the figures that we have provided to you. Without the amendment, the cost could increase by at least $24 million.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Fabian Manning
Mr. Blais, just a second. Mr. Keddy might be able to answer that question.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Yes, Monsieur Blais, I'll try one more round of this.
The issue as it exists, as the bill is written now, is that if it includes “any related structure”, then automatically all structures surrounding the lighthouse are included in the divestiture and in the designation. If lights are designated heritage lights, regardless of whether the structures have heritage value or not, they would all have to be maintained.
This will actually replace that with “any related building”, which means that the lightkeeper's house, or perhaps a shed built in the late 1800s or something like that, would have significant heritage value for the process.
In some instances, all related structures could include structures built in recent years that have no heritage value whatsoever. It could include wharves approaching some of these entities. It would actually increase, not decrease, the cost of the divestiture process. There would even be a twofold effect, because it would include the fact that those related structures would have to be maintained the way they were built in order to retain their heritage character. That may mean, in some instances, using older technologies and older processes, and we would be continually maintaining some of these wharves.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I want to be sure I understand clearly. I get the impression I'm hearing two completely different things.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Let's take example 2 of G-2. It concerns Clause 2, which concerns definitions. If I carefully read the English, it states: “That Bill S-215, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing [...]”
So we're replacing...
Mr. Keddy, I would advise you to listen to me, or else the two of us may be having a fairly long discussion.
It states: “That Bill S-215, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 2 with the following: 'this Act, and includes any related building”.
Could you tell me what this section is, and how the new section would read? That would give me a clearer understanding.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Yes, let me take a shot at it.
As it currently reads, the light station has a number of structures on it, one of which is the lighthouse, but there are other buildings sometimes, as Mr. Keddy has explained. There are also other structures like wharves and helipads and so on. So the intent of this amendment is to restrict, through the statutory obligation, that heritage level to just those buildings, rather than all the things that would be considered structures.
The next amendment flushes it out a little bit more. If you look at amendment G-3, we're explaining what “related building” means more clearly. I think the intent is to narrow the scope of the bill, which in my opinion is a good thing.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Wetaskiwin, AB
Well, if I can just add to that, the way I see this, Mr. Blais, is that if these heritage lighthouses are given over to a community group for maintenance and operation, if it's a tourist attraction and there has to be a wharf or some type of access facility, it would be much more costly if that access--whether it's a wharf, whether it's a road, whatever type of physical improvement is needed to provide access--had to be maintained in a heritage format. It would be much more onerous for whatever community group took over the operation of that heritage lighthouse.
I see this as an opportunity to create a little bit more success for those groups by allowing them to keep modern structures and modern access facilities open, yet still give the act the authority it needs to maintain the relevant structures, which are the lighthouse and any of the outbuildings that might be relevant to the long-term operation of that lighthouse, in their heritage state.
So for me, I think this is a good thing in terms of keeping costs down and giving these lighthouses every opportunity to be successful as heritage lighthouses.