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.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Also, it can be peacetime wrecks, as well, not just war wrecks. Is that correct?
4:15 p.m.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
Marc-André earlier gave the example of the U.K. legislation, which protects wrecks that resulted not only from conflicts but also just from general service. That's one example where something is protected that might not necessarily have become a wreck as a result of a conflict.
To our knowledge, there is no internationally accepted formal definition of a war grave. That would require, I think, more discussion for the Canadian context to decide what might be included in that definition, whether it's conflict in wartime, whether it's service, and whether it would extend to vessels that were put in service by the forces.
4:15 p.m.
Manager, Underwater Archaeology, Parks Canada Agency
If I can maybe add something, you are right. The question of war graves came to the committee at the last hearing.
From our perspective, those are one classification of wrecks that have loss of life, but there are others. There are a lot of other losses of life. That's why we believe that the regulations—as prepared and as thought of and as we've worked on them—would allow us to encompass everything, including those that are not military, but merchant vessels. Yes, it's beyond war graves, but specifically ocean war graves. That was brought up last month.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Because it would include anything that's underwater, I'm interested to know how the jurisdictional issue would be dealt with when it comes to provinces that effectively.... It would be provincial jurisdiction, yet we'd have federal legislation. Talk about that a bit.
4:15 p.m.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
It would require coordination. As we were developing these over the last eight to nine years, there was consultation with provinces and territories. They have asked for regulations to be in place to get rid of that inconsistency between the federal law and the provincial law.
Implementing the regulations would require coordination. We wouldn't want dual permitting, for example, so a province might give a permit for waters where you can find a wreck and where people want to do research and excavation, for example. We wouldn't come over and above that and do that, but would coordinate with the provinces and territories to make sure that either we did it on their behalf or vice versa, or there was some coordinating body.
March 19th, 2018 / 4:15 p.m.
Director General, Environmental Policy, Department of Transport
If I could add to that, it's one of the reasons that certain parts of Bill C-64 don't apply to wrecks considered to have heritage value: to take away that potential conflict with some of those pieces of provincial and territorial legislation.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I don't know if this would even be likely, but if we had an agreement with another country, would that possibly also include peacetime underwater wrecks, as well? How do you see that kind of an agreement working?
4:15 p.m.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
Do you mean for us to protect vessels of a foreign government in our waters?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Maybe the other way around; we might have vessels that were foreign to that country that we might want either some access to or protection for.
4:15 p.m.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
I think it would very much depend on the laws in force in that country, and Marc-André gave the example of France, where they would automatically protect it. They're not protecting just military vessels; they're protecting what they consider to be heritage wrecks. It could be other types of wrecks that would be in their waters that they would protect.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
It's very convoluted. Is there any way it could be made simpler?
4:15 p.m.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
I think the regulations would bring certainty. They would bring clarity to all involved in the country. The legislation and regulations would clarify what you have to do when you discover a wreck. They would clarify to those who were thinking of going to salvage heritage wrecks that they could not. It would identify clearly where you go to get permits if you wanted to do research.
Right now none of that exists in an overarching way. Our view is that the regulations would bring much-needed clarity and protection, because right now you're dealing with the variability of provincial and territorial legislation, and there's nothing protecting anything in federal waters right now.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
That state of the regulations is that they were prepared 10 years ago?
4:20 p.m.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
Yes. More or less.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Was there sufficient work done at that time with the provinces to get alignment?
4:20 p.m.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
Yes. We did quite a bit of work even before the authorities came into place in 2004, in view of those authorities coming into place imminently, all the way up to 2011. We feel that with the work that has been done now.... There was alignment back then. We would need to check and go back and consult with our provincial and territorial colleagues to see if what was thought of back then needs some updating. At that time, we felt things were well aligned.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
The impression I get is that with the updating you have just mentioned, these regulations could be ready to go anytime?
4:20 p.m.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
Yes. There's a regulatory process, obviously. We need to do consultations and have public comment periods. Our hope is that if we had the momentum and capacity, they could potentially be implemented by the end of 2019 or early 2020.
4:20 p.m.
Director, Cultural Heritage Strategies, Parks Canada Agency
The button has been pushed, I would say, because we've dusted them off and we're starting to talk with our colleagues in other governments and starting to engage with our federal-provincial-territorial colleagues at the culture and heritage table.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Let's say, for example, a new wreck is discovered. We suspect there could be up to 100 military vessels sunk and we discover a new one. Is there any mechanism in place where some sort of interim protection could be put in place until these regulations finally make their way over the finish line?
