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.
5:10 p.m.
Capt(N) (Ret'd) Paul Bender
I don't think there are large quantities, no. I am concerned about a depth charge floating to the surface at the same time as a fully loaded tanker reaches the same spot. I wouldn't want to be close by in the following explosion.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
There again, maybe some form of site remediation may be at least thought about if we know a wreck is along certain shipping lines, etc. Let's take the St. Lawrence Seaway as a good example.
5:10 p.m.
Capt(N) (Ret'd) Paul Bender
Yes.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
What about the merchant marine? You served there, and certainly the merchant marine, on balance, suffered more casualties than the Royal Canadian Navy. Should we not also extend the war graves protection to them because they were basically pressed into service on behalf of the country?
5:10 p.m.
Capt(N) (Ret'd) Paul Bender
Yes. Well, this is a highly controversial subject, because you have the commercial interests on the one side and the military interests on the other side. I did cite one case where the descendants of those who were lost in a merchant ship were successful in getting it classified as being roughly comparable to a warship, but it would have to be on a case-by-case basis—and very lengthy and very expensive.
5:10 p.m.
Founder and Executive Director, Project Naval Distinction
If I may add to that, sir, I know that in the U.K. legislation there is actually a definition for what military service is. As Captain Bender was saying, you could take that definition of what military service is and apply it to the merchant vessels to determine if they were in military service when they were sunk and whether the protection would apply.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Captain Bender, I want you to know how much we personally admire what you are attempting to do on this matter, which is, finally, that headstones surrounded with flowers be installed for those who have perished at sea. Hearing what the different departments said earlier, with all agreeing that a regulation is a must, is that sufficient?
5:10 p.m.
Capt(N) (Ret'd) Paul Bender
That would be sufficient only so far as merchant ships are concerned, because the Canada Shipping Act does not apply to warships.
5:10 p.m.
Capt(N) (Ret'd) Paul Bender
Well, section 7, I think it is, of the Canada Shipping Act clearly says that it doesn't apply to warships. Any regulation that was made under the Canada Shipping Act would apply only to merchant ships or commercial vessels. I should say that the definition of “state” vessel covers not only warships but also would cover the Canadian Coast Guard.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Captain.
Madam Chair, I'll give the rest of my time to my colleague Mr. Fraser.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you.
On that issue, there's something technical in play. I apologize, because I'm thinking it through in response to your feedback. The regulatory authority you've referred to, which is currently in the Canada Shipping Act, essentially will be transferred pursuant to Bill C-64 into the new piece of legislation that deals with abandoned vessels, if my memory serves me correctly. I can't remember a provision, though—my memory is imperfect—that is limiting in the same way that the Canada Shipping Act is, as you correctly pointed out.
This would lead me to think, at least in the moment—and I will go back to do my homework on this before we land on specific recommendations—that the minister responsible would have the authority to designate a state vessel that could be essentially a heritage wreck, which I think would open the door to include in regulations a sub-definition of war vessels.
If I'm correct in my analysis, do you still have reservations about the regulatory authority? I recognize that Mr. White has raised separate issues, which I'll get to in a moment, time permitting, but if that limiting factor in the Canada Shipping Act is not present in the new Bill C-64, which we have just dealt with at this committee, would it be okay with you to offer protection through that scheme?
5:15 p.m.
Capt(N) (Ret'd) Paul Bender
No. I would much prefer that there be separate legislation to apply to state vessels, because warships are exempt under international maritime law, no matter which UN convention you look at, which means that the state has to have its own legislation respecting the behaviour of persons on the warship and the behaviour of the warship itself.
It's important to understand that when we send one of Her Majesty's Canadian ships to sea, that ship is not acting for the Minister of National Defence or for the Government of Canada, but as a crown vessel, and the crown, 92-year-old Queen Elizabeth, has other things to do, so she delegates her authority to the Governor General. Under section 15, I think it is, of the Canadian Constitution, the Governor General is the command-in-chief of the Canadian Forces. Any time a warship goes to sea, that ship is acting on behalf of Her Majesty, as her power is delegated to the operating level.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I expect I'm more or less out of time here, so I may follow up with you in the days to come.
5:15 p.m.
Capt(N) (Ret'd) Paul Bender
Okay.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thanks very much, Madam Chair.
I guess I have just one question. I would not be opposed to allowing Mr. Fraser to ask the other questions he has, unless other committee members have questions. I know that he and I are thinking alike today, so I'm happy to give him the opportunity to ask his questions
I'm wondering if you would be willing and would feel free to provide to this committee the letter you received from MP McCrimmon, just so we could have a better understanding, perhaps, of what the issues were that the Government of Canada, through her, was raising on the work you were doing.
5:15 p.m.
Capt(N) (Ret'd) Paul Bender
Well, I did mention in my presentation the relevant section of the email that was sent to me by MP McCrimmon's office, and I don't think there is anything preventing me from distributing that.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
If you would send that to the clerk, I'm sure she would be able to get it to the members on the committee.
5:15 p.m.
Capt(N) (Ret'd) Paul Bender
Yes.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Fraser, do you have any more questions? Or I'll go on to Mr. Badawey.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Maybe just quickly, there is one issue I'd like to raise. Why I keep coming back to this issue of regulatory schemes versus a separate piece of legislation is that I think there's an opportunity to do something now, and I don't want that to pass me by.
Should we recommend as a committee that the government adopt a stand-alone piece of legislation from scratch, I fear that over the next number of months, despite what may be the best of intentions, things will take longer, as they always do. As a new member of Parliament, I will say that they take a lot longer than I would like them to. There is an opportunity to offer some protection today, recognizing that it may not be perfect. The one stumbling block I have is that perhaps the criminal component Mr. White referred to would likely be absent, but we've seen very serious penalties through a regulatory scheme—of an administrative monetary nature, for example—that are quite effective at serving as a deterrent.
I wasn't quite with you every step of the way when you described the fact that the vessels in service of the crown, because what can be.... Because essentially regulations hold the same force and effect of a piece of legislation for the purpose of the law being implemented, I still think there might be an opportunity—and if you disagree, please let me know—to classify ocean war graves as essentially a subcategory of a heritage wreck under the regulations for Bill C-64. That would give us the opportunity to remove the carrot, so to speak, that's provided for salvage operators and implement a stick of some kind through another kind of regulatory penalty scheme.
If in my work to follow I am confident that's the case, are there still going to be obstacles that prevent us from taking advantage of the opportunity that's staring us in the face today?