The Heritage Canada Foundation, in its 2004 Report, ranked the disappearance of the 1855 vintage Hotel Shediac as the second worst heritage loss in Canada. What an honour!

Fortunately, all is not lost. Shediac has managed to hold on to some of its heritage by restoring the Pascal Poirier House and restoration of the old Chez Francoise building will soon be complete. There is still L’Auberge Gabriele, Auberge Belcourt Inn, Maison Vienneau and the Webster House to remind us of the town’s architectural heritage.

Over the past 30 years, according to the Heritage Foundation, Canada lost 23% of its early buildings in urban areas and 21% of building stock in rural areas. This rate of destruction is disturbing, particularly when too often we see them replaced with ugly, no character glass and steel monstrosities.

The people of Shediac have a chance to do better. On May 9th, Public Works and Government Services Canada issued an invitation to private sector developers to provide information in respect to the possibility they will lease nearly 40,000 square feet of office and storage space in the Town of Shediac. The space would be used by the Superannuation, Pension, Transition and Client Services Division of Public Works for the next 15 or twenty years.

This will bring new jobs to Shediac and new revenue to the Town in the form of property tax and retail purchases. One of the locations mentioned for this development is the site of the late and departed Hotel Shediac. At least one developer has expressed an interest in acquiring the site for the project but Shediac Town Council has said no way because it promised opponents of the hotel demolition that the once stately edifice would be replaced with “a multi-use community building and cultural centre”.

In my opinion, the former hotel site is ideally located for the Superannuation expansion. It’s just across the street from the existing complex and it has the spatial characteristics to meet the criteria laid out by Public Works but that’s not enough to justify turning over the property to land speculators or developers.

The other day, I came across a brochure that was distributed in support of the ‘save the hotel’ campaign. It depicts how the Hotel might have looked if restored to its original appearance. The illustration got me thinking.

The people who wanted to preserve the Hotel (and I was one of them) were concerned with preserving a dilapidated old building that marked a piece of their heritage. They were also concerned with preserving what had become a visual icon and the natural heart of downtown Shediac. Even in its run down state, it was still a landmark.

Most of the people who wanted to save the hotel probably hadn’t been in the building for years. They weren’t users. They didn’t send their friends to stay there. They didn’t eat there. They were just wallowing in nostalgia, remembering the time when our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, stayed for the night on his way back to Ontario from the 1867 Confederation Conference in Charlottetown.

Or maybe it was the memory of passengers waiting at the hotel for the ferry to Prince Edward Island or the summer celebrities like comedian Bob Hope and movie legend Greta Garbo who visited the hotel.

Regardless of their reasons for wanting to save the hotel, most people would admit it was the idea of losing something of historical significance to their town that bothered them most about the demolition. Today, the site displays as an empty lot, a lot without a purpose. Council lives with its promise to replace the hotel with a community centre but it’s not likely to have the money to build anything significant for the next decade or two. Besides, a community centre is no replacement for a historic hotel. The property has memories. It needs life and activity to make it thrive.

I think the Town should offer the property for lease but attach to the lease agreement an irrevocable and easily enforceable covenant that would require a developer to replicate the façade of the original hotel (even if it needs to be oversized) as the face of an office building that could be built to house the Superannuation folks?

The covenant could also require the developer to imitate the hotel’s ground floor with a check-in counter that could serve as a tourist information booth, a formal dining room, a grand staircase and a community heritage centre. Parking could be in behind the building and loading facilities could be accessed from the BMO laneway. To make it perfect, the developer could be extended to refurbish the old Shediac Train Station as a heritage restaurant for staffers in the daytime and tourists in the evening.

The new building would be a proud landmark. It would celebrate the heritage of Hotel Shediac and showcase the compatibility of heritage and the modern day office environment. It would attract admiring visitors and make tenants of the building and their employees proud.

The Hotel is gone. It’s not coming back. Shediac Council should jump on the chance to replace it with something that will bring new life to the town while honouring its heritage. This is not about breaking promises or responding to the interests of a real estate developer.

This is about taking advantage of a commercial real estate opportunity to make the town a better place.

Don’t blow it folks!

Wow what a week!

Last weekend, Parliament was in a juggernaut brought to its knees by a coalition of the Conservative Party of Canada and the Bloc Quebecois Party of Quebec-separation.

By Monday Stephen Harper was having second thoughts about bringing down the Government before the budget vote on Thursday May 19th and I was set to write a column about Canada’s media and how its views in respect to the Government had changed so much over the last 18 months.

Remember how pleased the media was with Paul Martin’s ascendancy to power and the departure of Jean Chrétien.

That was before the Auditor General made the Quebec sponsorship scandal a national soap-opera. We went through an election fighting the ghosts of sponsorship to find at the end of it a public that was willing to suspend its decision on the matter of guilt and punishment until they heard the full story.

The Gomery Commission unleashed months of testimony that seemed to indite a large number of Quebec Liberals. Members of the media began daily feedings from the Gomery trough, driving themselves into a frenzy and passing judgment on witnesses before they were convicted. Quebecers were mesmerized. The Conservatives smelled blood and jumped at the opportunity to join forces with the Bloc Quebecois.

The media ignored this obvious breach of national etiquette and quietly anointed Stephen Harper as its next Prime Minister. Macleans Magazine did a cover story on “The Real Stephen Harper. “He’s known as icy and inflexible.

Up close, he’s anything but”. The Globe & Mail softened its view of Harper and moved towards the views of its anti-government columnists John Ibbitson and Margaret Wente. The Toronto Star’s syndicated columnist Chantel Hebert salivated at the prospect of a Martin defeat as did editorialists in western Canada.

Here in New Brunswick, the Times & Transcript demanded we “throw the bums out” (referring of course to the Liberals) and pronounced them ‘guilty’ before Judge Gomery could weigh the evidence and delivers his verdict. Last week a procedural vote in the House of Commons was characterized as a “confidence vote”. It was not. Under the rules and traditions of Parliament, it was a procedural vote but many in the media ignored that reality in their attempt to convert perception into fact.

On Tuesday, Belinda Stronach dumped everyone on their ear by announcing that she was leaving the Conservatives to join the Liberal government. Her reasons were clear and simple.

She could no longer tolerate the Conservatives’ partnership with the Bloc Quebecois. She was concerned about the consequences of an early election in Quebec. She was concerned that Stephen Harper would renege on his earlier promise to support the Federal Budget as the smell of blood (read power) propelled him towards an anti-Budget vote that would defeat the Government.

She acknowledged that her views on same sex marriage, abortion and other social issues were closer to the Liberals than the Conservatives, implicitly suggesting there was no room in the new Conservative Party for people with progressive or differing views.

Belinda’s move appears gutsy and principled. She didn’t walk into a safe and secure environment. The Government could fall within weeks. Her re-election as a Liberal is far from assured. The bitterness of her former colleagues will be felt for months if not years, particularly if her move changes the longer term dynamics of Parliament in such a way as to breathe new life into the Liberals.

If she is re-elected as a Liberal, she could become a dark-horse candidate to succeed Paul Martin. Wouldn’t that be ironic?

Wednesday morning, we took a break from Ottawa to learn that provincial Liberals in British Columbia had been re-elected, albeit by a reduced majority, a testament to the rewards of early tough-love and fiscal responsibility.

On Thursday, it was back to Ottawa and Budget day. There were two votes. The first was easily won by the Government 250 to 54. The second was a little closer 152 to 152 with the Speaker breaking the tie in favour of the Government.

The Canadian dollar moved up by 0.03¢ in expectation of a Liberal win. Gilles Duceppe promised to continue fighting to bring down the Canadian Government. Jack Layton was ecstatic that his budget amendments were adopted. Stephen Harper called for a renewed partnership with the Bloc to bring down the Government.

My reaction to the Budget vote was one of relief. I’m tired of the noise in Ottawa. I’m concerned that the preoccupation with power, the pursuit of power and the retention of power has become more important to politicians than the public good. I’m concerned by the trending of Canada’s media towards tabloid journalism.

I’m relieved to know that my summer may be election-free. Thank you Mr. Cadman and thank you Ms. Stronach.

By chance, I was in Riverview Thursday evening with a small group (75 or 80 people) of large ‘C’ and small ‘c’ conservatives when the vote results were announced. The group cheered the outcome. They didn’t want an election. Like Premier Williams in Newfoundland, they wanted the Budget to pass. It seems the people have more sense than the media.

In a side discussion at the same gathering, I heard people voice their criticism of the vitriolic response to Belinda Stronach’s move and the sexist characterizations of her decision. They were concerned about the Bloc Quebecois’ rise in popularity and the prospect of a Bloc sweep in Quebec.

Unlike the media, they are prepared to wait for results of the Gomery Commission before deciding the future of Canada’s Federal Government. They’re not thrilled with the idea of Stephen Harper as Prime Minister.

They remember his statements about Maritimers on the dole.

The Greater Moncton International Airport has a problem.

Last week, five golfers checked in with Air Canada traveling to Toronto and then on to Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. The check-in was quick, friendly and efficient but it was down hill from there. The golf bags could not be accepted by Air Canada for security reasons.

As a result, the Air Canada agent had to walk us down the hall to a lobby inspection table. There, our golf bags were subjected to a strip-search. They were poked and prodded. Clubs were removed from their cocoons. Flashlights were shoved into their innards to reveal god knows what.

To make matters worse, an older gentleman with two plastic boxes full of clothing and personal belongings was inserted into the lineup for golf-bag searches. He was forced to unpack and empty his containers for all passersby to see. After the inspectors examined his belongings, they tried to repack the containers but the contents wouldn’t fit so the poor old guy had to empty them and repack the boxes by himself.

When he finally got everything to fit, the containers needed to be re-sealed. The security folks had nothing but packing tape to offer him for sealer so he had to tie them together like some poor homeless soul stuffing his belongings together for the streets.

This whole episode took 55 minutes from check-in to clearance of the fifth golf-bag. That’s unacceptable. When we asked why the ‘body-search’ was necessary, we were told that new Canadian security regulations required personal inspections of non-conforming baggage like golf-bags.

We wondered aloud why it was that other airports avoided such inspections. We were told that was no longer the case, that now every airport would conduct similar inspections.

We observed that most airports had scanning equipment and/or x-ray machines that made personal inspection unnecessary unless something out-of-the ordinary was spotted in the x-ray image. The answer “we’ve never heard of such equipment.

This is the way all airports are inspecting baggage now”. That’s rubbish. A few hours later, our bags were checked through security in Toronto without a search. On the return trip from Raleigh with major security postings in the airport, our baggage was passed through security scanners in less than a few minutes. No one touched them except the airline clerk who attached baggage tags.

After our baggage inspection saga in Moncton, we moved on to personal security inspection. For this privilege, we were charged a $15 exit tax and asked to remove our shoes, jackets and belts and walk through an x-ray scanner. No problem, that only took a few minutes. How come our golf bags were body-searched?

When we arrived in Toronto, we had to walk about a kilometer to catch a bus to Terminal Two to collect our bags. Once we retrieved our bags, we had to haul them another half block to U.S. Customs & Immigration and then to the re-loading conveyor but without further inspection. The whole process took about five minutes. Once the bags were on their way, we had to go through another personal security scan but no big deal.

It’s interesting to note that Toronto handles forty to fifty times as many passengers as Moncton, albeit through 21/2 terminals, and yet it seems to be able to process its security inspections in less than 10% of the time required in Moncton.

The people who shared our Moncton experience with golf-bag security were livid. Two of them are not from the area and swore never to use the terminal again when traveling with golf clubs. One of them observed that he would tell his friends to avoid Moncton until the Airport finds a way to speed security inspections.

Imagine if the flight had 30 or 40 golfers booked that day. Based on our experience, the flight would have been delayed three or four hours and everyone would have missed their connections in Toronto.

Flying used to be a fun way to travel. It is no more. We pay five or six hundred dollars to be treated like cattle in a second rate movie. We submit to security checks that would embarrass travelers of old. We surrender our dignity to the notion of fear. We accept small, cramped aircraft and multiple hub-changes as the price for saving time.

Maybe New Brunswickers are used to second class air service and accept whatever is thrown at them. When they fly to Toronto or Montreal, planes are parked great distances from the centre of the terminal.

Passengers are deplaned without benefit of weather-protecting jet-ways. Connections take an hour or more. Hey, we’re tough. We can handle it but it’s different when you’re at home. You expect good service. You’re proud of your new airport and you’re embarrassed when it lets you down in front of your friends.

Imagine if you were a tourist from Toronto or New York heading home from a golfing trip in New Brunswick or PEI and were faced with a golf-bag strip-search at the Moncton Airport before heading home. Would you be impressed? Would you leave with a bad taste in your mouth? Would you want to return quickly?

Scanners and x-ray machines are used by international airports to inspect golf bags and special baggage. They do not add delay to the check-in process unless the scans reveal questionable objects in the bags.

If they’re good enough for super-sensitive security operations in U.S. airports, they might be good enough for Moncton. A $15 exit fee justifies state-of-the-art inspection.

If the Moncton Airport persists in its body-search of golf bags, I suspect it could become the laughing stock of international airports.

Gilligan’s Bar and Grill at Parlée Beach continues to fascinate writers to the Times & Transcript.

For weeks, readers have been subjected to rhetoric for and against the restaurant. The issue, as I understand it is that the Beaubasin Commission over-rode an environmental regulation that would have prevented construction and operation of the restaurant.

That’s unfortunate and somebody’s wrist should be slapped. The restaurant is now a reality and as near as I can see presents no imminent or future threat to the local environment, to the beach or to the sand dunes.

In addition to objections from so-called environmental protectionists, there appears to be an organized letter-writing campaign from people who will lose their summer jobs because of the Gilligan’s closure.

Writers talk about relying on Gilligan’s to feed their families. They do themselves a disservice. The restaurant has only been in operation for a few years. It’s only open for four months a year. Why wouldn’t these people travel to Moncton to find work if Gilligan’s disappears? The real losers in closure would be students who depend on summer employment at places like Gilligan’s to help finance their university tuitions.

I’ve been going to Parlée Beach all my life.

There’s always been a ‘beach-house’ or three along the beach that sold food and beverages and offered gaming machines and dance-floor entertainment. None inflicted damage on the beach or wetlands environment except for the occasional drunk falling into the water.

The beach is not damaged or diminished by Gilligan’s. It is no more intrusive than the two other buildings that sit beside it. Gilligan’s has not added to beach traffic. People don’t travel for miles to hang out at Gilligan’s, they travel for miles to enjoy the beach and the water. Gilligan’s is a watering hole and a lunch stop for beach-goers, no more and no less.

Years ago, the Gould’s Beach House sat on the Gilligan’s site. Like the two others on the beach, Gould’s sold food and beverages, pin-ball machine gaming and dance floor entertainment. The beach withstood that invasion of people and subsequent investment by the Province extended the beach and improved the beach environment.

Today’s sand dunes are two or three times higher than when I was a kid. The depth and length of the beach is double what it was then. If there is an environmental problem, it’s a problem that comes with thousands of beach-goers, not Gilligan’s.

In the 70s, the Provincial Government designated Parlée Beach as a provincial park. Provincial parks are promoted as tourist attractions for residents of the Province and visitors to New Brunswick. Most tourist attractions in the world offer food and beverages for sale. You can’t expect tourists to spend time (whole days) at an attraction without access to washrooms, food and beverages, unless you are a wilderness attraction and Parlée Beach is certainly not wilderness.

The underlying issue with Gilligan’s is that a small, vocal group of Pointe du Chêne residents have decided that they don’t want tourists in their recreational space and they’ve managed to convince environmentalists that invasion of their space is an environmental threat. They have also managed to convince the Provincial Government that withdrawal of an operating permit for Gilligan’s will help preserve the Parlée Beach environment and appease New Brunswick’s environmentalists. They are wrong.

Whatever environmental damage has been done by Gilligan’s, and I’m not convinced there has been any, will not be compensated by closure of the facility. If there is public support for the reclamation of Parlée Beach for the exclusive use of Point du Chêne residents, I would be very surprised.

To return the beach to the private sector would require the Province to abandon its interests in the beach as a ‘provincial park’. That would be ridiculous idea, given the fact it has been a public beach for 100 years and is used by a few hundred thousand people a year.

If there is justification for the closure of Gilligan’s, there is equal justification for the closure of Parlée Beach as a provincial park. If the park is closed to the public and returned to the private sector it would be overwhelmed with commercial and residential development. That might satisfy some folks but it would deprive the people of New Brunswick and their visitors of a provincial treasure.

There is an old expression “Be careful what you ask for because you might get it”.

What if the provincial government turned the Parlée Beach Park over to a residential developer? What if that developer put up a 2,000 or 3,000 unit condo, apartment and hotel-complex? Would that be better for Pointe du Chêne residents than a Gilligan’s that operates 4 months of the year and bothers no one except a few Pointe du Chêne residents who have convinced themselves that their environment has been spoiled? Is it the environment they are concerned with or their view-plane?