Evidence of meeting #94 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was wreck.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Manager, Underwater Archaeology, Parks Canada Agency
Yes, there's the Titanic, but also our Royal Canadian Navy vessels in international waters. Most of them are in either U.K. waters or French waters. The French, basically, will stop any activities on the foreign military vessels and contact the government.
We do have one vessel that's protected under the French regime.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Does that require that we request them to protect it, or does it happen automatically under French law?
Manager, Underwater Archaeology, Parks Canada Agency
The French will do it automatically and contact the country, and then we can say yes or no. With the British, you do have to be proactive. We do have three corvettes, as was mentioned in the previous committee hearings; and 95 men lost their lives on these three vessels.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Could the regulations require the minister, in the example of the U.K., to make a request where that's required?
Manager, Underwater Archaeology, Parks Canada Agency
It wouldn't necessarily be part of the regulations, but it could be part of a global strategy on wrecks and heritage wrecks that we're hoping to develop.
Liberal
Manager, Underwater Archaeology, Parks Canada Agency
In this case here, yes, because we have no legislative authority in international waters.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I think I'm out of time.
If in a future question, Ms. Bertrand, you could get your comment in, that would be great.
Thank you.
Liberal
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bertrand, you spoke about the importance of the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and the importance of this international treaty designed to address the growing problem of pillaging and destruction of heritage.
You also indicated that Canada did not take part in the convention because, unlike the 58 other signatory countries, Canada did not take the necessary action. What are the justifications for this refusal to take measures to join the convention?
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
I wouldn't say it was a refusal. It's a pretty complex subject, actually. The convention doesn't cover just shipwrecks of heritage value, but all underwater cultural heritage. For instance, it could include the remnants of an ancient indigenous village.
Canada currently has no legislation that truly protects cultural heritage at the federal level. So that is the first obstacle to ratifying such a convention. It's up to the country to determine for itself whether it has taken sufficient measures to protect all underwater cultural heritage, such as shipwrecks, villages and other remains that could end up in its waters.
I wouldn't say it was a refusal. The current legislative framework is lacking. In fact, another parliamentary committee, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, discussed the legislative shortcomings. This committee recently made some recommendations for Canada to consider implementing such legislation.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Could you tell us—now or through documents that will be sent later to the clerk—which internal assessments by your respective departments justify the fact that, since 2001, the necessary steps haven't been taken to be part of this convention?
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
Yes, we could provide you with more details.
Essentially, the powers to create regulations have been in the act since 2007. The act came into force in 2001, and it took a few years to establish the powers to make regulations. At this point, we began to determine how these regulations could protect the marine environment.
We also have to work with the provinces and territories, each of which has its own laws and regulations. We do not want to double the bureaucracy or the number of licences needed to administer the protection. It is quite complex, given the questions that arise in the areas of federal and provincial jurisdiction. We want to make sure we do things right, with the agreement and participation of other authorities.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Various figures have been put forward during your presentations.
Has an estimate been given of the value of Canada's underwater heritage that has been damaged since 2001, since the adoption of this convention?
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
I'll let my colleague Mr. Bernier respond.
Manager, Underwater Archaeology, Parks Canada Agency
Are you talking about the number of wrecks that have been damaged?
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
It might be interesting, in the context of our committee's work, to have the breakdown of the annual data on heritage that has been damaged, such as the number of wrecks and their value.
Manager, Underwater Archaeology, Parks Canada Agency
We don't have an estimate like that at the moment.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Okay.
Library of Parliament briefing notes we received indicate that, pursuant to subsection 163(2) of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, cabinet may, on the joint recommendation of the Minister of Transport and the Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency, make regulations governing shipwrecks or classes of wreck that have heritage value.
Could you tell us how many times this power has been used so that cabinet provides legal protection for ocean war graves?
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
To our knowledge, this has never been used at the federal level, given that the regulations are not in place.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
In other words, cabinet can do it through regulations but never put them in place.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
That's what we're currently working on.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Right. This is fascinating.
As we know, the wrecks of RMS Erebus and RMS Terror are included in the National Historic Sites of Canada Order. So someone committing an offence against these wrecks is punishable by a fine of up to $100,000.
Have you determined the number of wrecks that could be included in this order? Why are they still not?
Manager, Underwater Archaeology, Parks Canada Agency
In fact, it was a measure we took that was specific to the territory of Nunavut. It could hardly be enforced elsewhere in Canada because it follows from the Nunavut Act. It is a delegation of authority from the federal to the provincial level. We have placed part of the territory under the protection of the Canada National Parks Act. This measure therefore applied only to this place
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Okay. As you said, there is still work to be done with the provinces before extending this type of measure.
Has work been started—
