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.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Ms. Sansoucy, I'm sorry but your time is up.
Thank you, all.
Mr. Iacono.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My questions are also for Ms. Bertrand and Mr. Bernier.
Could you describe the process and criteria that establish a wreck's symbolic value?
4 p.m.
Manager, Underwater Archaeology, Parks Canada Agency
Of course, the heritage value of a wreck can be determined in a variety of ways. It varies by country. At the international level, UNESCO has come up with a solution that respects the approach it wants. We are talking about 100 years of coverage. Everything that has been in the water for more than 100 years would therefore automatically be protected. Using age as a basis is easier administratively speaking.
Having said that, there are other ways of proceeding and other criteria. A wreck may be important locally or regionally, or even nationally or internationally, as is the case with the Titanic.
After consulting with the provinces and many partners, including groups of divers and interest groups, we suggested uniform coverage beginning around 50 or 70 years, so that we can capture parts of our national history, including the period of the two world wars, especially the second.
We are talking here about military vessels, but there is also the merchant navy. It doesn't benefit from the international protection offered to vessels or flagships belonging to a fleet. Our sources indicate that 72 Canadian merchant navy vessels were lost during the Second World War, resulting in the loss of more than 1,500 men. According to UNESCO, these vessels would not benefit from 100-year coverage. However, we would like this period to be covered, because in Canada it has had a considerable impact.
The heritage value of a vessel can therefore be defined by the age of the vessel or by what it has accomplished.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
Yes. This second proposed criteria to establish heritage value would perhaps recommend that the minister add to the list other wrecks that experts and historians believe would have heritage value even if they are not as old as set out in the first criterion.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Harris, in reference to the last paragraph on page 1 of your document, you mentioned that it was discovered in 2005 and the proper military burial was done in 2015.
4:05 p.m.
Acting Director, Chief Historian, Directorate of History and Heritage, Department of National Defence
That's correct.
4:05 p.m.
Acting Director, Chief Historian, Directorate of History and Heritage, Department of National Defence
It took some time to work out what should be done with, first of all, the frame of the aircraft. Once it was discovered, the local town had an idea of lifting the wreckage and using it, perhaps, as a monument in the town. Others became interested in that.
The issue at that point was whether there were human remains aboard, and we suspected there were but we hadn't dived to it yet. It was a case of trying to put off interest until we could get to it and confirm whether there were human remains and whether they could be safely removed from the wreck without lifting the wreck. In the end what we concluded was that we could remove some of the remains, but not all of the remains, without lifting the wreck.
The wreck was lifted, and then it was a case of making sure that the next of kin could attend the burial. It was a long process, but it worked out.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Okay.
I want to make reference to your document, on the second page, second to last paragraph, you say:
If something is going to be defined as a war grave, that suggests that the wreckage and the human remains are not going to be touched, removed, and reburied. In that case, DHH has no involvement whatsoever.
My question is to all three departments. Can you explain if, when, and how your role would be with respect to heritage wrecks, war graves, military wrecks, or human remains? We're dealing with so many components. Who does what, when, how, and which department? This needs to be clarified.
4:05 p.m.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
I'll start, and then I think I'll turn it over to Marc-André.
Under the envisioned regulations, Parks Canada would be the lead. If it were a military wreck, if there were human remains, we would obviously work with and consult our colleagues at DND, potentially Veterans Affairs as well.
The general idea is for in situ preservation. There are protocols in archaeological research around human remains. The protocols are respected and they're very defined. Perhaps this is where I'll turn it over to Marc-André, as to how to treat them, but overall Parks Canada would be the lead on that regime.
4:05 p.m.
Manager, Underwater Archaeology, Parks Canada Agency
There are many steps. The first one is to identify whether the wreck is known or not and whether it's a Canadian wreck or a military wreck. Then, depending on which one it is, you will involve either DND or Global Affairs.
Once you identify human remains, we do have a protocol within Parks Canada that is a “no touch” and “leave in place” protocol. I'll give you one example, quickly.
In 2009, an American PBY airplane was found with human remains in the St. Lawrence. At that time, knowing when we found the plane that there were human remains inside, we stopped everything, contacted the U.S. through the former department of foreign affairs, and worked with them to recover—they wanted to recover the human remains to repatriate them, so we helped them out.
It's basically a collaborative effort. In approaching this issue we are talking to DND, Veterans Affairs, and other departments, because it has ramifications.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mr. Bernier. I'm sorry, it was just a lot of information that we were trying to get at the last minute, evidently.
Mr. Badawey.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do want to thank the witnesses for being here today and helping us to put something in place or, one hopes, adding to what's already there. This is extremely important to this committee, and the intent is to solidify a pragmatic process to ensure that we can deal with this in a most respectful manner, moving forward.
My first question has to do with the special designation for heritage wrecks and war graves.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but am I now hearing that it's multi-ministerial? I heard Parks Canada, Transport, Defence, and also Veterans Affairs mentioned. Are those the different ministries that are going to be involved in this? I thought I also heard that Parks Canada would be the lead.
March 19th, 2018 / 4:10 p.m.
Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
I think it's important to also remember that the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard has a role at the start of this process.
Bill C-64 and the activities around it clarify that the first point of contact when a wreck is identified is the Canadian Coast Guard. The Coast Guard would then be in touch with Parks Canada, which leads on heritage wrecks. If there is military involvement, then it is with DND, and certainly with Transport Canada.
It is important to note also that in the definition of “receiver of wreck”, wrecked aircraft in water are included, so the regulations that Parks Canada is talking about to deal with heritage wrecks and war graves would potentially include aircraft in the water.
4:10 p.m.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
After that initial communication and the reporting of a discovery, Parks Canada, as the lead agency for federal archeology, would take the coordinating role. We would be the face of the work and the permitting, perhaps in co-operation with the province.
Yes, sometimes it gets complex because we have to consult and work with other departments or other jurisdictions, but at the end of the day, it would be Parks Canada's mandate and authority to implement and give effect to the regulations and the permitting activities therein.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chair.
If I may, I'll just dig a bit deeper into the weeds. Both internationally as well as nationally, working with our partners, from some of the recommendations I've already heard, I thought that a lot is already in place and that it's a matter of filling in those gaps.
Do you see that article 303, point 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea would actually help fill some of those gaps?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
I'm going to have to take a pass on that question.
Would you or Madam Burack respond?
4:10 p.m.
Manager, Underwater Archaeology, Parks Canada Agency
The Law of the Sea will give sovereignty to the wreck. It doesn't really fill a gap. If there is a ship from a foreign country in our waters, it is up to our legislation to protect it. I think that is where the gap is.
Basically it preserves that ownership, but it would then mean that we need regulations to protect those wrecks. It's the same for our ships abroad. It keeps our sovereignty of these ships, but then we have to—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, and thank you, Madam Chair.
How much time do I have left? Two minutes? Great.
I want to get a bit deeper into that as well. What I'm trying to do is to find a mechanism for us to get to that next step, to actually have this done in a shorter time frame versus longer.
When I look at article 303, point 1 of UNCLOS and I compare it to article 303, point 3, they're actually contradictory. Article 303, point 1 places a duty on states “to protect objects of an archaeological and historical nature found at sea”, whereas article 303, point 3 states that nothing shall affect “the law of salvage or other rules of admiralty”.
Is there an opportunity here as well to help, or contribute to ensuring that those sections don't contradict each other, so that, moving forward, we don't run into hiccups or challenges to our really looking after a lot of these sites?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
I think the situation right now in Canada itself has inconsistencies between provincial or territorial legislation, for example, and what's in the Canada Shipping Act. The Canada Shipping Act actively rewards people for going to do salvage work. These regulations, as I said earlier, would remove those from wrecks that have heritage value.
I can't comment on the Law of the Sea and how that might help or how the contradictions might be resolved by other pieces of legislation, but in the Canadian context the regulations would resolve those inconsistencies.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I just have a couple of questions.
I wanted to get some clarity. The term that is being used is “ocean war graves”, but we are talking about under the water here, are we not? It doesn't just have to be oceans?