Ontario Marine Heritage
Act, 1999, Bill 13, Mr Barrett / Loi de 1999 sur
le patrimoine marin de l'Ontario, projet de loi 13, M.
Barrett
ACUC
International
Mr Robert Cronkwright
Professional
Association of Diving Instructors
Mr Randy Giles
Save Ontario
Shipwrecks
Mr Tim Legate
Kingston Diving
Centre
Mr Nick Drakich
Diver City
Charters
Mr Brian Taylor
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West ND)
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff /Personnel
Mr Jerry Richmond, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at
1534 in committee room 1.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): Good afternoon. I'd like to call the
standing committee on general government to order for the purpose
of considering Mr Barrett's private member's bill.
As the first order of
business, if I could get someone to read the report of the
subcommittee into the record and then we of course have to
approve that.
Mr Ted Chudleigh
(Halton): I believe I've been delegated, Mr
Chairman.
The Chair:
Excellent choice.
Mr
Chudleigh: I have to read this entire thing?
The Chair:
Yes, sir.
Mr
Chudleigh: No one can dispense?
The Chair:
The clerk looks askance at that sort of thing.
Clerk of the
Committee (Ms Anne Stokes): It should be read into the
record.
Mr
Chudleigh: All right.
Your subcommittee met on
Thursday, September 28, 2000, to consider business before the
committee and recommends the following:
(1) That the committee
consider at its next order of business, private member's Bill 13,
An Act to preserve Ontario's marine heritage and promote tourism
by protecting heritage wrecks and artifacts.
(2) That the committee meet
on Wednesday, October 4, 2000, and Wednesday, October 11, 2000,
in Toronto to hold public hearings into the bill.
(3) That an advertisement be
placed on the Ontario parliamentary channel and the Legislative
Assembly Web site. The clerk is authorized to place the ads
immediately.
(4) That the committee clerk
contact directly by mail the list of names that have already
contacted the clerk and the list of names held by the member for
Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Mr Barrett. Mr Barrett is to provide the
list of names to the clerk. The mailing is to include the
advertisement and a review of the draft amendments to the
bill.
(5) That witnesses be given a
deadline of Wednesday, October 11, 2000, at 12 noon to make their
request to appear before the committee.
(6) That witnesses be given a
deadline of Wednesday, October 11, 2000, at 12 noon for written
submissions.
(7) That the clerk contact
the following major shareholders: Fédération des
activités subaquatiques, Montréal; ACUC International;
PADI; Underwater Canada; Ontario Archaeological Society, Toronto;
SOS Kingston; and two other names to be provided by Mr Barrett to
appear before the committee.
(8) That the major
shareholders be allotted 15 minutes for each presentation, all
others 10 minutes for each presentation and each caucus make an
opening statement of up to 10 minutes each.
(9) That the clerk of the
committee, in consultation with the chair, be authorized prior to
the passage of the report of the subcommittee to commence making
any preliminary arrangements necessary to facilitate the
committee's proceedings.
The Chair:
The clerk advises me that in (7) and (8) there was a typo. Will
you see it as a friendly amendment that the word "shareholders"
should actually have read "stakeholders"?
Mr
Chudleigh: Yes.
The Chair:
Would you move adoption of the report.
Mr
Chudleigh: I so move.
The Chair:
All those in favour?
Mr Dave Levac
(Brant): On a point of clarification, Mr Chair: Do we
know the two names from Mr Barrett who are going to appear before
the committee?
Mr Toby Barrett
(Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I'm going to have to
check.
The Chair:
It's OK. The clerk has it: Goderich Marine Heritage Committee and
the South of the Surf Dive Shop.
Mr Levac:
Thank you, Chair.
Second clarification, the
number of names on the mailing list held by MPP Barrett:
approximately 200?
The Chair:
The clerk informs me it was approximately 182.
Mr Barrett:
We probably came up with about 182 address labels or e-mail
addresses.
Mr Levac: As
they came in to you?
Mr Barrett:
Yes. We've certainly had phone calls from well over 200 people
over the last 11 months.
Mr Levac:
Thank you for that.
A final one: I don't know if
this is normal protocol. In our first discussion, I guess it was
a pre-subcommittee discussion, a point that I brought to your
attention was the
possibility of adding a day in the event we find that a large
number of people feel they want to present. Is that still
available even if we adopt the minutes?
The Chair:
These are the minimum, so we have not spoken to what the
committee will be doing after those two days.
Mr Levac:
Very good. Thanks, Mr Chairman, I appreciate the
clarification.
The Chair:
Any further discussion on the subcommittee report?
Mr Chudleigh has moved its
adoption. All those in favour? Contrary, if any? The subcommittee
report is passed.
For the benefit of any
committee members who did not know, we have a new clerk joining
us for the first official duty today, Anne Stokes. Welcome
aboard, Anne.
Clerk of the
Committee: Thank you.
The Chair:
You're following in Viktor's big footsteps, and I mean that
literally.
1540
ONTARIO MARINE HERITAGE ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR
LE PATRIMOINE MARIN DE L'ONTARIO
Consideration of Bill 13, An
Act to preserve Ontario's marine heritage and promote tourism by
protecting heritage wrecks and artifacts / Projet de loi 13, Loi
visant à préserver le patrimoine marin de l'Ontario et
à promouvoir le tourisme en protégeant les épaves
et les artefacts à valeur patrimoniale.
The Chair:
This takes us to the first order of business. We had agreed there
would be opening statements. Mr Barrett, you have the first 10
minutes.
Mr Barrett:
With respect to Bill 13, the Ontario Marine Heritage Act, I
appreciate it finally getting to the committee. I recognize that
this decision was just made very late last week, and
unfortunately today is short notice for our presenters. However,
I trust there will be additional time for other people. I know
people who are still out on the lake somewhere right now and may
not even know about this, or are perhaps in other provinces.
I'm looking forward to input
from all MPPs. Over the last 11 months, we all have received a
large number of e-mails and letters and phone calls. I mentioned
we've been in contact over the past almost year now probably with
about 200 individuals and organizations. I think we all realize
my purpose in introducing this bill was to enhance the protection
and preservation of Ontario's marine heritage resources and,
secondly, to promote tourism and in particular dive tourism.
I am from a tourist town,
Port Dover, which was formerly and still remains a commercial
diving town. Over the years, we have now seen the recreational
divers, the charter boats. The industry is becoming very
significant. I'm just making reference to one small town down on
Lake Erie.
A year ago last summer, a
friend of mine from Port Dover, Jim Murphy, wrote me a letter to
my constit office urging tougher marine heritage protection for
shipwrecks and artifacts that lie in Ontario's waters. Mr Murphy
pointed out that the dive tourism industry was booming in Lake
Erie, partly because of the quagga mussel, the zebra mussel and
the clarity of the water. In his letter, Mr Murphy stated, "With
a province-wide diving community of several thousand divers, it
is imperative that we have a strong protection mechanism in place
to protect these sites from looting divers."
Under our current laws, the
Ontario Heritage Act legislation does not specifically address
marine issues. For example, words like "shipwreck" or "marine"
are not in the Ontario Heritage Act, meaning, people have told
me, that the Ontario Heritage Act needs to be supplemented with a
clear message on the protection of marine heritage sites.
This bill is designed to deal
with some of the current weaknesses with respect to marine
protection. As well, beyond Mr Murphy, many other divers,
historians and conservationists have argued for something like a
new marine heritage act to ensure that the hundreds of wrecks
lying in Ontario's waters are protected. It was input like this
that pushed me to draft legislation to deal specifically with the
protection of marine heritage.
On November 10, 1999, last
year, which was the 24th anniversary of the sinking of the Edmund
Fitzgerald, I announced my intention. I had a bit of a news
conference in the Port Dover Dairy Bar and pulled together our
local SOS group, the board of trade, some other business groups
and some journalists. At that news conference, a number of groups
seemed to like what they were hearing as a minimum first step to
controlling what's going on on the bottom of our lake, Lake Erie,
and other lakes.
In the interests of time, I'm
going to skip some of the historical aspects. Probably the first
ship lost would have been the Griffon, in 1679. Over the years,
as we know, hundreds of ships and boats have gone down in
hundreds of storms, perhaps thousands have gone down if you
consider the American side. In fact, I will mention that-my
figures here-there was a survey; the US government did a
chronicle of the two decades between 1878 and 1898 and reported
5,999 vessels wrecked or foundered on the Great Lakes. Well over
1,000 were total losses.
I want to make very clear,
and with many phone calls over the past almost year have made it
very clear, that this legislation is not intended to be a barrier
to recreational divers. We've all received many, many e-mails
with this concern. The legislation, in part, is to educate people
that shipwrecks are precious, that they're a non-renewable
resource, and we must ensure a balance between protecting and
preserving Ontario's marine heritage sites while at the same time
encouraging tourism and business, especially in many of these
far-flung port towns where shipping commerce is history now. Many
of them are certainly in rural Ontario and could use some
help.
Over the winter and this spring there has been a lot
of discussion concerning improvements to the original draft
legislation, again under the category of amendments. This
proposed act will make it illegal for anyone to knowingly access
or enter a prescribed heritage wreck-when I say "prescribed"
wreck, we're not referring to all the wrecks down there; we're
referring to a handful of wrecks that people would agree need to
be protected. I'm thinking of the Atlantic and Lake Erie, the
Edmund Fitzgerald, for example. This act will make it illegal for
anyone to knowingly access or enter one of these prescribed
heritage wrecks or to move part of a heritage wreck or remove
silt-and I know this is controversial, and we may hear a
discussion of that today-or other naturally occurring substances
unless he or she is licensed to do so.
Under this proposed
legislation, it would be an offence to remove a protected
artifact from a heritage site unless that person, again, is
licensed to do so. The act is meant to ensure that divers are
careful, as it makes it an offence to damage a marine heritage
site or a protected artifact.
Currently, a person who finds
a shipwreck is not required to report the location of that wreck,
and some divers use this fact to keep newly discovered wrecks or
artifacts to themselves. This is natural. Like I say, I'm from a
commercial diving town, and over the years a number of people
have made a bit of a living doing that. I might mention that a
very large number of basements and rec rooms in Port Dover have
artifacts from ships that have come out of Lake Erie over the
years. The bill requires that anyone who finds a shipwreck must
notify the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation of the
nature and location of the wreck as soon as possible.
Trying to think ahead to the
impact of some of these amendments, very simply, with the
amendments we're proposing, there are two classes of shipwrecks:
the prescribed-by-regulation sites or prescribed by this
legislation, the very sensitive sites, perhaps not yet surveyed;
and sites that have human remains, either within them or perhaps
on the outside of the wreck. Hence the rationale to prohibit
access or entry without a licence. Again, I'm thinking of the
Edmund Fitzgerald and others on this list for various reasons-the
Hamilton and the Scourge in Lake Ontario, the Atlantic, as I
mentioned, the recently discovered Wexford in Lake Huron. All
other sites-the other category of wreck-are available for diving
on, but there would be prohibitions with respect to moving
artifacts or damaging the wreck, of course.
Secondly, with the
amendments, this issue of the minister publishing a record of all
marine heritage sites: that would mean more work for people who
work for the government.
How stands the time?
The Chair:
Wrap it up.
Mr Barrett:
The minister would specify which on that list-there may well be
several hundred shipwrecks on that list. The minister would have
to clearly describe those wrecks that are prescribed as heritage
wrecks.
I would like to wrap up my
comments. I am very pleased to see the delegations here today. My
purpose over the past year or so has been to attempt to consult
and to generate as much participation-I have sent out news
releases and many letters and packages to people. My goal is to
foster as much discussion and consultation as possible on what I
consider a fairly important issue that, to my knowledge, hasn't
been addressed in this province.
1550
Mr Levac:
I'm going to start by indicating on the record that in the first
discussion between Mr Barrett and me, I indicated to Mr Barrett
that it sounded like he was going down the right road and that it
was a very noble thing and the right thing to do. Subsequent to
that I have done some homework and have been deluged, as has Mr
Barrett, with many e-mails.
I want to point out that a
lot of the direction I am being pointed in is the Ontario
Heritage Act. There seems to be general agreement that there is
some fault in the Ontario Heritage Act, and not necessarily a
very large need for Bill 13, if the Ontario Heritage Act were to
be amended and corrected to compensate for the lack of mention of
marine heritage. So it's going to be on the table that maybe we
had better be taking a good, hard look at the Ontario Heritage
Act. But we're here to discuss Bill 13, and I will be sharing a
few moments of my time with Mr Crozier on this side.
What I want to say is that I
have reviewed every e-mail that has come to my office, including
the ones that ended up in Mr Crozier's office, and I believe I
forwarded them to Mr Barrett as well. Of all the ones I have gone
through-and I did it again today to ensure I was going to say
something that is correct-every single e-mail had problems with
the bill. The e-mails were coming from tourist operators, from
municipalities, from individual divers, from clubs-from all parts
of the community that is involved and impacted by diving-and
indicated to some degree, and in a positive way, that the intent
was right and that Mr Barrett's précis of the amendments,
which he was prepared to offer, was a good step. But they still
had reservations. So I'm going to state again that I am very
pleased to hear the Mr Barrett has indicated his willingness and
desire to enter into a very open dialogue and to see what we can
do in terms of the best possible legislation the province can put
out as far as protecting and understanding the multi-level issue
we are talking about in terms of diving.
The simple issue of just the
silt has created quite a bit of controversy and discussion, as Mr
Barrett pointed out, and I believe that needs to be looked at
very carefully. I only hope this doesn't become an exercise to
simply defend legislation, versus entering into the dialogue Mr
Barrett is talking about.
Regarding some of the
information he started the crusade on-I also put this out as not
necessarily a teaser but as a challenge to indicate that when we
hear from one source only as to their validity and their reasons
for operating and asking for such a bill-the question I would ask
is, of the surveys and the
finding of wrecks, are we not re-announcing the find of a wreck?
Are we not using materials that have been previously submitted by
marine archaeologists? I think we have to be very careful that
self-interests are not looked at as simply the reason we need
this bill.
That being said, I'm going to
wrap up my comments by telling you that I will be listening very
carefully. I will be open-minded as to the validity of the bill,
compared to whether we should be reinvestigating the Ontario
Heritage Act.
I will leave with a little
quote that I think we are all familiar with. There is a little
joke from elementary school that I am familiar with: if there is
something wrong with a screen door on a submarine, you don't
close the door. Amendments might not make that screen door on the
submarine go away. I think we might have to investigate getting
rid of the screen door and adding the metal door back on to the
submarine, where it belongs.
I'll defer to Mr Crozier for
the rest of the 10 minutes.
Mr Bruce Crozier
(Essex): I know my colleague Mr Gerretsen would like to
make a few comments, Chair, so if you could let me know when
there are about two minutes left, I'll jump off.
I too have a keen interest in
this on behalf of some of my constituents, on behalf of the
community of Leamington, where I live, and of course on behalf of
the diving community at large.
Back in 1992, when I was
mayor of Leamington, I worked very closely with John Karry of SOS
to begin the process of what has developed into a diving park
called ErieQuest. At that time, we looked at the fact that about
275 ships have been recorded as being sunk somewhere in the Pelee
Passage between Point Pelee and Pelee Island, which is where I
live. To date there are about 50 known locations of shipwrecks in
the Pelee Passage.
It was with keen interest
that I looked at your bill, Mr Barrett. In fact, the day before
it was to be debated, I too was prepared to support your bill. I
thought it was the right thing to do, until I quickly got on the
phone and started speaking with some people, telling them about
the bill and reading the bill myself. I found that even though
the intent of the bill is the preservation of marine heritage, I
thought it was going to be a barrier to preservation. Not only
was it going to make wrecks almost inaccessible or illegal to
access; I feel it was going to encourage those who find new
wrecks not to provide that information to anyone but a few of
their diving friends.
You mentioned that this would
only apply to prescribed wrecks. That's going to be a difficult
issue to address as well. One might ask, why shouldn't it apply
to all wrecks?
But we do want to encourage
the diving community from a tourism standpoint. It means some $4
million in tourism revenue in my area alone. So I want us to work
in the right direction, and I want us to do the right thing.
There also has been some
question raised about where federal jurisdiction may lie, and we
have to answer those questions.
I like the idea of private
members' bills passing, because it gives some indication that
this Legislature can be open to ideas from all areas. But I too
have heard, and am inclined to agree, that you can't take a
poorly written bill and correct it by amending it. I think in
this case we should get the weight and resources of the
government to carry this forward, and it should be done through
amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act. I hope we can work toward
that end.
Mr John Gerretsen
(Kingston and the Islands): Just a very few comments; I
don't want to repeat anything my colleagues may have already
stated.
I too come from a community
where diving is a thriving business. We have over 17 different
operators who charter dives. As you can well imagine, in the
eastern end of Lake Ontario, with the prevailing westerlies we
have, over the years there are many hundreds of shipwrecks in the
eastern end of Lake Ontario. So it's a big business for my
community, it affects a number of different businesses and it's
something we're certainly greatly interested in.
I know there will be some
people from Kingston who will be presenting here today and next
week as well. I hope they and the others will be listened to and,
since this is a private member's bill, that we will keep as open
a mind as possible on all these issues and do what's right.
I must say, from the amount
of correspondence and the number of discussions I've had with
people in my area, there seems to be something drastically wrong
with this bill. I hope if at the end of the exercise we come to
the conclusion that this is not the right way to go, that we will
work collectively toward a bill that will work to everyone's
advantage, including the tourism industry which is a major
portion not only in Port Dover but also in the Kingston area.
1600
Mr David
Christopherson (Hamilton West): I'll be very brief. I
think most of what I want to put on record has already been said,
so I won't duplicate it.
My colleagues in the House
on the day this was introduced supported it in principle to get
it into committee. Like my colleagues from the other parties,
we've received some of the concerns that are out there. I think
Mr Barrett's ideal and his goal are worthy. I hope that by the
end of the presentations today, we will have an opportunity to
see our way clear to provide the kind of balance everyone can
live with and that preserves the heritage that I know everyone,
including divers, wants to maintain, bearing in mind that the
last thing we want to do is damage both the recreational life of
individuals and their right to enjoy their leisure time. The
economics of diving tourism need to be given weight, and
hopefully at the end of the day there don't have to be winners
and losers in this but we are collectively smart enough to find a
way to craft legislation that will achieve all the goals. I will
start out as an optimist, believing we can do that.
I would say, for the
record, that my colleague Rosario Marchese is actually the member
of this committee and will be following through on it, Toby. But
I will apprise him of
everything I hear today and make sure he gets copies of all the
materials so there isn't any loss of continuity of our
understanding of the issue.
Let me just say as a
footnote that as a Hamiltonian, the Hamilton and the Scourge,
warships of 1812 that have been mentioned, are really important
to our community. I suspect there are a whole lot of communities
that can name specific sites that are of importance to them. We
also have a lot of divers in our community. One of the presenters
is from my community. So if ever there was a microcosm of our
problem, it is there. For that reason, in addition to others, I
will be paying very keen attention.
The Chair:
Before I invite the first guests forward to make their
deputation, I would like to thank them all for responding on such
short notice. It needs to be said that of necessity, private
members' bills have relatively short notice because government
bills take priority. So wherever we have an opportunity, this
committee has tried very hard to accommodate the various
interests that all three parties have brought forward to us
through private members' bills.
Let me say as well, without
in any way prejudging the outcome of this bill, that within the
last year we've seen an NDP private member's bill on franchising
and a Liberal member's bill on Mental Health Act reform both
turned into government bills. What happens at the minimum is that
we have an opportunity to hear all sides in the debate on a
topic, and there's not necessarily one conclusion to that. But I
really want to thank everyone who has responded today. The clerk
informs me that other names are coming in for next Wednesday, and
we hope the word gets out and that everyone who has a point of
view has an opportunity to come and make their
representation.
ACUC INTERNATIONAL
The Chair:
Having said that, our first group today is ACUC International. I
invite them to come forward to the witness table. Welcome to the
committee. We have 15 minutes for your presentation. You can
either use it all for your presentation or leave time for
questions and answers.
Mr Robert
Cronkwright: Mr Chair, members of the standing committee
and Mr Barrett, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
speak to the committee today. My comments will be very brief. The
short notice I received regarding this committee sitting hasn't
allowed me to correctly put forward a presentation regarding the
bill. In addition, I have not received a final draft of the
proposed Bill 13, therefore I am unable to speak directly to the
bill. My comments will centre around the intent of the
legislation to protect our marine heritage.
First, allow me to applaud
the efforts put forward by Mr Barrett to preserve the marine
heritage that abounds in the waters under the protection of the
government of Ontario. The court decision regarding the Atlantic
clearly showed a need to improve the legislation. ACUC had always
been a proponent of marine conservation and shipwreck
preservation. An integral part of our open-water diver training
addresses this concern. Included in my handout are examples of
how marine heritage is incorporated within our training
program.
Since the original meeting
with Mr Barrett and his subsequent recommended amendments to the
bill, I have been in conversation with a vast number of ACUC
members regarding this very bill and wish at this time to express
their concerns.
Number one is that the
divers request a list of the sites and locations, if known, of
all wrecks in Ontario waters covered by this act. The reasoning
is that the wrecks, for the most part, do not carry name tags,
and the divers won't know if they have found a new, unrecorded
wreck or not. This allows the divers to report new finds. In
addition, the location of wrecks that require a permit will be
easier to identify if the location is known.
By what method will wrecks
and sites be legislated as requiring a permit? Will there be a
checklist of criteria used to determine the status of each? If
so, this checklist should be published. What will be the
procedure for filing to have a site listed as requiring a permit?
The concern is that self-interest groups will have wrecks
signified "off limits" for their own gratification rather than
the actual heritage.
How will sites requiring a
permit be delisted, and how will this information be made public?
The concern is confusion regarding what dive sites are and are
not permitted for diving.
Has any thought been given
to how this act will be policed? I suspect that any action taken
will be as a result of someone filing a complaint. The recent
artifacts removed from the Wexford is a prime example of exactly
what I mean.
Unfortunately for you all,
page 2 is missing, but it was very brief and I can send you a
copy. Actually, I was winding up by saying I respectfully request
that these committee meetings be tabled until the stakeholders
have a chance to read and comment on the wording of the amended
act.
The Chair:
If that's the end of your comments-
Mr
Cronkwright: That's it.
The Chair:
-we'll certainly open it up for questions. We probably
have time for a couple of minutes from each caucus, so we'll
start with the Liberals.
Mr
Crozier: Just one quick question: are there amendments
that have been tabled?
The Chair:
My understanding is that nothing has been tabled. Mr Barrett, do
you want to comment about the status?
Mr
Barrett: I have not tabled amendments. I have a list of
amendments.
Mr
Crozier: But you're referring to amendments, sir.
Mr
Cronkwright: I have copies that Mr Barrett sent,
suggesting amendments to the act.
Mr
Crozier: Would Mr Barrett like to share them with the
committee?
Mr
Barrett: Yes. That would probably have been last winter
or spring.
Mr Cronkwright: Yes, in the
spring, in March.
Mr
Barrett: That was sent out to about 200 people. Since
then, things have gone around the table once again and around the
province. I have a more recent list of amendments. It's still a
work in progress. I could table that now.
Mr
Crozier: It's up to you, I guess. I just want to make
the point that nothing has been tabled, then.
Mr
Christopherson: There's been enough reference to it by
you and now by the first presenter. It would just be helpful. I
don't think it precludes you from doing anything. This is not
meant to be a controversial arena.
The Chair:
I might offer, Mr Barrett, that you could introduce something as
a piece of evidence, if you will, without committing yourself to
actually reading it into the record, because we're not at
clause-by-clause anyway. So technically speaking, it's for
information purposes only and the clerk could make copies.
Mr
Barrett: I think that would be helpful. Things were
moving pretty quickly for us in the last few days as well. In
discussions, in the give-and-take, I do have basically a
thumbnail sketch of suggested changes. It may need some
explanation, but I can make that available. These are solely my
amendments; these are not government amendments. I've tried to
summarize what we've been doing.
The Chair:
Perhaps the clerk could make copies of that, circulate them and
offer some for the people in the room as well.
Do we have any
questions?
Mr
Gerretsen: Just on that point, I have a copy of what is
called Amendments to Bill 13, a summary. I assume that since he
circulated them to the people who sent him e-mails and letters,
this is their response to those amendments that I guess he
circulated. So we might just as well see them. In other words,
people are responding to your amendments in their e-mails and
letters, so we might as well see what they are.
1610
Mr Levac:
That being said, I do have a copy of questions regarding the
presentation. If you had your way and were able to give the input
you're looking for after you get the consultation, your
understanding of the bill is that it's headed in the right
direction, that there is some type of understanding that we want
to try to protect our marine heritage. The question that then
begs is this: is it better to amend the Ontario Heritage Act or
is it better to implement a private, separate bill on marine
heritage?
Mr
Cronkwright: I believe a purpose would be served if the
Ontario Heritage Act were amended to include marine.
Mr Levac:
A follow-up to that would be, as the chairman, Mr Gilchrist,
pointed out, we have had private members' bills change directions
and end up as government bills. In consultation with this, Mr
Barrett has indicated a very willing and open process that allows
all of this comment to go in the direction of trying to get the
best possible bill for the industry. Would it then be your
opinion and your group's opinion that if Mr Barrett were to put
forward an amended bill that the government picks up and then all
of a sudden mysteriously turns into a better heritage act, you
would be satisfied, and probably more satisfied?
Mr
Cronkwright: I would be satisfied if-
Mr Levac:
If it covers off the things you're talking about.
Mr
Cronkwright: If it covered off the questions I had asked
and put in place maybe a little more explanation of just exactly
what each point meant.
Mr Levac:
That's fine.
The Chair:
Mr Christopherson, do you have any questions?
Mr
Christopherson: It's a little difficult because things
are sort of shifting in front of us as we discuss it. I don't
have a lot of special knowledge in this area, but you seem to ask
very legitimate questions.
In the interest of
furthering the issue rather than any kind of partisan activity,
if Toby had the extra time and he could answer some of these
questions in a way that would get the conversation going, I'd be
quite prepared to defer my time to Toby to allow him to do
that.
Mr
Barrett: You've certainly posed a number of questions in
your brief. There's one thing I wanted to raise: I don't think
you made mention of the whole issue of silt. I don't know whether
your organization had any thoughts on that. In the original
legislation it was written that it would be illegal to disturb
silt. At the time my understanding of that was to anchor a barge
and a sandsucker over a wreck and start excavating, basically. It
was explained to me by divers, who used this term "finning silt,"
which was a new expression for me. "What if I'm down there diving
and my fin touches the silt and leaves a mark? Am I going to be
charged by the OPP?" That certainly was not the intention of
that. That debate continues.
To my mind, if someone
unknowingly disturbs the silt, I don't see that as a problem. Or,
say, a commercial fisherman is trawling or dragging and drags or
comes up on a wreck, which does happen certainly in Lake Erie,
and has disturbed the silt, if they have unknowingly done this-I
feel that "knowingly" should be included in the legislation.
To my mind, when you are
diving down there-and I'm not a diver; I've spent a lot of time
on the surface but I don't dive-I can see it's natural to pick up
an artifact or to clear away debris. How sticky should we be in
the legislation as far as this issue of silt? Many people have
raised that.
Mr
Cronkwright: I don't think sandsuckers should be allowed
to go in and clean out vast areas of a wreck unless there is an
archaeological dig that's going on, at which point there should
be some form of a licence granted to the individuals who are
doing this. I believe there has to be a specific purpose laid out
for the archaeological dig, not just that a group on a Saturday
wants to go and explore a wreck.
Having said that, there was
no mention in my report about silt. The letter from yourself
dated March 13 states, "I am recommending that the section dealing with
entering a wreck and removing silt be deleted from the
legislation." So I didn't address that with the divers. It was
brought up to me on a number of occasions, what constitutes silt,
and I said, "Don't worry about it. It has been taken out of the
legislation." So there was no comment there.
Mr
Barrett: That was my feeling. However, there still does
seem to be a debate on that between people who want access and
want to do these things and other people who want to preserve
what's down there to the nth degree.
The other question you
raised was, and I could answer this in part: how will the act be
enforced? I do not see an OPP diver stationed down there on, say,
these 20 wrecks that have to be protected, like the Hamilton and
the Scourge. A system was set up on the Atlantic. I think this is
maybe public knowledge. I will make it public anyway.
As you know, hundreds and
hundreds of artifacts were removed from the Atlantic by both
Americans and Canadians, and I think they were within their
rights to do that. I don't have all the details of that resulting
court case. However, after that the Ontario government decided to
enforce it and to keep these people from diving on the Atlantic.
They had an opportunity with Long Point and the lighthouse and
they set up radar on top of the lighthouse-it's a 90-foot
lighthouse-to constantly monitor that area above the Atlantic.
But that didn't work because lightning would hit the lighthouse.
So it's obviously very difficult. The technology isn't there, to
my understanding.
I think the answer to your
question is the good work that is done by organizations like SOS.
Anybody who is in this business-in the dive tourism business, the
charter boats-knows darn well that if they're bringing a dive
crew back and somebody has picked up something, the captain and
the organizers are going to detect that because, again, they lose
their business, in many cases, when these wrecks are stripped or
altered to any great degree. It leaves us with perhaps
self-regulation, and the sincere interest of divers and people in
Ontario to ensure that these wrecks aren't stripped and to work
together.
There are penalties within
this legislation. If someone is caught, there would be highly
publicized fines. The media play a very important role. I will
mention that this winter I attended the weekend convention of the
OUC, the Ontario Underwater Council, and there I noticed a
"Wanted" poster and a reward was posted. Somebody had removed a
brass plaque off I think a steam engine. I think it was down
Kingston way.
Mr
Gerretsen: Don't you point your finger at me.
Mr
Barrett: I think it was down your way. So again,
"Wanted" posters and posting rewards. I doubt they got that brass
plaque back. I don't have the information on that.
I think we are looking for
partnerships with the dive community and people who are out on
the lake. Commercial fishermen are out there when the tourists
aren't. They know what's going on, oftentimes. The Coast Guard
may have a role. This is a tough one.
I'll make mention of the
Wexford. That steamer went down in 1913 in that three-day storm,
as I understand. It was recently discovered by a recreational
fisherman, and I think within weeks somebody got in there and
started taking items off that wreck. That was just this fall. So
what we have now isn't working.
The Chair:
Mr Barrett, Mrs Munro has a very brief question.
Mrs Julia Munro
(York North): In the comments you made at the very
beginning, where you talked about your support for the intent, I
wondered, as someone really unfamiliar with the issue in the way
that you are familiar, whether or nor there is in your mind a
distinction or a difference potentially between what people might
describe as the tourist diver, if you like, the person we're
talking about as part of that tourist industry, and the
professional archaeological kind of diving. Is there a
difference, or is that a difficult line to draw?
1620
Mr
Cronkwright: There are a lot of, we'll say, amateur
archaeologists within the recreational diving field. These divers
like to plot out a wreck and go through it piece by piece and
look at the wreck as much as they can, whereas the professional
archaeologists go in with the full equipment, do a lot of
measurements, do very position-specific drawings. So there
certainly is a difference between the two.
I would suspect that the
marine archaeologists, the professionals, would be looking for
specific items or specific places; for instance, the Avro Arrows.
I'll mention those, and I'm certain there's a lot of interest
going on about where to find those, if they haven't been found
already. I don't believe the average Joe diver should be allowed
on those presently until all of the historical information has
been gotten from them, and then they can be opened to the general
public; the same with any of the archaeological wrecks. For
instance, a new wreck, if it's suspected that there were bodies
on that wreck, should be preserved until such time as it could be
investigated. If in fact it was a gravesite then it should be, as
far as I'm concerned, banned for all time. You should not be
allowed to dive on a gravesite.
There are specific things
that could be put into place to handle this type of thing, and
the chance of having a marine act such as this would possibly
work toward that. But if the Ontario Heritage Act could be
amended, it would serve the same purpose without having another
piece of legislation.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Cronkwright. I appreciate your coming on very short
notice. Let me just remind you that we haven't set a fixed end to
these hearings, and if you have any other thoughts, please feel
free to send them either to the clerk or Mr Barrett. I'm sure
either one would appreciate it, and they'll be disseminated to
all members of the committee.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DIVING INSTRUCTORS
The Chair:
Our next group will be the Professional Association of Diving
Instructors, PADI. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. I
just want to declare a conflict as a PADI member.
Mr Randy
Giles: Mr Chairman, members of the standing committee on
general government, ladies and gentlemen, first, thank you very
much for the opportunity to communicate with you today.
As a scuba diver, concerned
Canadian, former archaeologist and the Canadian national manager
for the Professional Association of Diving Instructors, I would
like to share my concerns and offer the expert assistance of PADI
in protecting our marine heritage and promoting tourism in
Ontario.
First, it is reasonable
that PADI's voice be put into context. PADI is the largest
recreational diving education organization in the world, with
over 100,000 professional instructors and dive masters, 4,000
dive retailers and resorts in over 176 countries and territories
training over 800,000 PADI divers annually. PADI Canada's
professional members train about 85% of Canada's divers. We're
the largest and most active dive industry organization in the
province of Ontario.
PADI's official corporate
mission statement states, "We are committed to the protection of
underwater cultural heritage for the future of divers and
non-divers alike." What that means to you is that we are partners
in the preservation of cultural heritage. It means that not only
do we have no argument about preservation, but additionally, that
you have our support in this noble goal.
We have concerns about Bill
13. Our concern is simple. We would like to ensure guaranteed
public access to shipwrecks of Ontario. Further, we are concerned
that Bill 13 does not specifically protect access. There are many
unanswered questions around the issue of access, some of which I
will list shortly.
Additionally, we are
concerned that Bill 13's development could not move forward
without sufficient input from one of the largest, if not the
largest, stakeholders in the province. That would be PADI. Put
simply, I feel we have much to offer and that our extensive
knowledge and experience has not sufficiently been taken
advantage of in the development of a bill such as Bill 13.
Bill 13, as it stands, may
well not be able to accomplish its stated goals. One of the
recent suggested amendments states that the regulations would
include a list of sites to which divers could have unrestricted
access. Turn it around; why not a list of sites that have limited
access? What is the mechanism for determining which ships have
unrestricted access and which ones have limited access? Who
decides on the access issues? Who has the right to provide input?
How is a poor decision appealed?
Surely we have the ability
to develop access guidelines that would be fair and clear. PADI
feels it is reasonable that the diving community has answers to
all of these questions prior to the passing of any legislation.
PADI would be happy to enter into discussions that would assist
in the answering of these critical questions.
Ontario is not the first
jurisdiction in the world to address the protection of subaquatic
cultural heritage. There are many examples from around the world
of well-balanced approaches that have been developed by
governments, industry and other stakeholders. I am very pleased
to say that PADI's expertise has been sought and used many, many
times.
PADI has extensive
experience in historic shipwreck issues. As an example, if this
committee is unaware of the United States federal Abandoned
Shipwreck Act instituted by the US Department of the Interior's
National Park Service in 1990, then I would suggest it be
reviewed. These guidelines were designed for use by both the
state and federal agencies in establishing shipwreck management
programs. PADI was an active participant and a consultant in the
development of these guidelines.
Many jurisdictions feel
that the close co-operation between divers and government,
guaranteeing diver access to shipwrecks, is an important
component in historic preservation. As an example from our
neighbours to the south, according to the United States National
Trust for Historic Preservation, I'd like to quote three
points.
(1) The role of sport
divers. Their involvement in managing shipwrecks is critical
because the public the shipwrecks are managed for are divers.
Divers, through co-operation and education, provide effective
self-regulation; for example, peer pressure against looting
wrecks.
(2) Due to limited law
enforcement personnel-an item that has been mentioned earlier in
this meeting-it falls to sport divers to act as the state's eyes
and ears. As noted, sport divers and commercial fishermen
discover most wrecks. Their concern for the integrity of historic
shipwrecks translates to a virtual extension of the state's
monitoring authority. They regularly monitor the condition of
many of the wrecks and are sometimes able to discover who is
looting them through their own information networks.
(3) It is to state
managers' advantage to enlist the aid and services of sport
divers. Some shipwreck program managers have devised incentives
for sport divers to encourage them to be more forthcoming with
their knowledge of new wreck sites so that the states can begin
to make some headway in developing an inventory file and attempt
to evaluate historic significance. Some states try to motivate
divers by providing educational outreach in the form of lectures,
courses, brochures, slides and films. Other states encourage
disclosure by giving credit and publicity to divers who
voluntarily report new sites or return to it souvenirs collected
and kept. Artifacts on public display are credited to divers who
returned them to the state, and photographs of co-operative
divers are circulated in newsletters and other periodicals.
The US Abandoned Shipwreck
Act stipulates reasonable public access and guarantees
recreational exploration of shipwreck sites. I'm going to state
for you some of their
guidelines, keeping in mind that this is just one jurisdiction.
If we had enough time today I could go over hundreds of
jurisdictions with you that have tackled this problem in very
effective ways. I'm going to suggest to you that we might not
need to reinvent the entire wheel.
1630
"Guideline 1: guarantee
recreational exploration of publicly owned shipwreck sites. At a
minimum, any person should be able to freely and without a
licence or permit dive on, inspect, study, explore, photograph,
measure, record, fish at, or otherwise use and enjoy publicly
owned shipwrecks (including historic shipwrecks and shipwrecks
whose historical significance has not yet been evaluated) when
the use or activity does not involve disturbing or removing parts
or portions of the shipwreck or its immediate environment."
Their point is to create
the access but to control the parts of access that become the
issues.
Their second guideline is
to establish lists of shipwrecks having recreational value. Their
third point is to facilitate public access to shipwrecks. Their
fourth point is to consult with interest groups prior to imposing
any restrictions on access. Their fifth point is to regulate
access at few, if any, shipwrecks.
Other Canadian
jurisdictions have had excellent results by working closely with
the diving community. In many parts of the world the UASBC, which
is the Underwater Archaeological Society of British Columbia, is
looked at as the ideal model for marine heritage management.
Here, active divers enhance the work of heritage conservation
without the necessity of any types of restrictions that have been
alluded to in Bill 13.
I would like to offer
PADI's assistance in helping to develop an approach that reflects
on existing excellent models from around the world while
incorporating any specific measures that may be unique to
Ontario. I'd like to at this point invite any questions or
comments you might have that I might be able to shed some light
on.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Giles. This time the questioning will
start with Mr Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: In your opinion, do you think amendments
can be made to the existing bill that's before us that will work,
or would you advocate that we need to start from scratch, or
amend the Ontario Heritage Act?
Mr Giles:
I would not go forward with the existing bill. There are too many
problems with it. I would have to take a very good look at the
heritage act prior to commenting on it, though I have reviewed it
briefly. My brief review of it was that it seems quite sound.
Mr
Christopherson: When you mention the BC experience, I'm
assuming that when you make reference to it, it's because you had
both sport divers and the people who are advocating the
preservation of heritage wrecks onside with the bill.
Mr Giles:
Absolutely. What the British Columbia government has done is
provide some minimal funding. I think in the case of BC-don't
quote me on this-it's probably around $20,000 a year. The
provincial archaeology people are involved. The group is educated
by both the government and-because they are a keen group of
interested people, they want to do this right. They take great
pride in discovering, listing, identifying and recording the
history of the wrecks. Plaques are put on the sites; the sites
are posted. There's a great and fantastic honour system. By the
way, at the end of the day you're going to be stuck with an
honour system, no matter what you do, until the OPP can spend 24
hours a day underwater on each of those wrecks. The way to do
this is to get the buy-in from the community that has access.
What I hear from the
members out there, the divers in the communities, is, "These are
our wrecks. We found them. We're the ones who spent the time and
the money and the gas in the boats and bought the GPS and went
out and found these things." The Ontario government isn't going
to come up with the funds in short order to go and identify all
of these wrecks. So you're stuck with these people one way or
another. The trick they've done in BC is that they've brought
these people into the fold. Anybody who's interested in
underwater archaeology for the most part gets involved with that
group and they are taught proper protocol-I used to teach with
the underwater archaeology; I mentioned to you that I have a
background in archaeology-so they would understand the issues of
how to protect a site and what's going on there.
Mr
Christopherson: Have there been measurable results that
you can compare? Is it actual legislation, or guidelines? What is
it?
Mr Giles:
It's not legislated. It is an ad hoc group with co-operation from
the government.
Mr
Christopherson: Are there results that can be studied
that show before and after to prove that it's successful?
Mr Giles:
Yes. It would take no great deal of homework to take a look at it
and learn that they've been able to find wrecks that have been on
the list for a long time, because they have a coordinated effort.
They have combined the resources; they have encouragement and
recognition in the community. They are very active and have
found, listed and categorized many of these wrecks.
Another piece to share with
you is that a wide amount of the wrecks that are down there
today, regardless of all the protection you can provide, are not
going to be there in 20 years from now. Mother Nature is taking
its toll. One of the things we hope to do-and in the
archaeological world this is always true-is to seek the
information while the information is still extant. Once that's
gone it's gone forever. Sometimes these things actually work to
our benefit, when managed properly.
The Chair:
We have time for a very brief question from each caucus.
Mrs Munro:
I appreciate your comments and your comparison with BC as a
model. We've had a number of people make suggestions with regard
to amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act. In what way would that
be different? What are we talking about as an amendment?
Mr Giles:
First of all, I did not say and did not mean to be taken as
saying that I thought we should amend that act. I stated that I was unfamiliar with it
in its complexity.
Mrs Munro:
I appreciate that.
Mr Giles:
So I would have to take a look at that.
The thing we're driving for
here is what comes from Toby's big heart and his right-minded
approach to begin with: to protect our heritage. We need to do
that. Our organization is a global organization and we have that
stated in the values of our company. It's right there for
everyone to read. We feel it is so very important. So when Toby
came to us with that as a goal, there's a full salute to
that.
The trick is that we also
have to be pragmatic in how we go about doing that. The thing is
that a piece of legislation, despite the fact that its heart may
be in the right place, if it's ill-founded is not going to
accomplish those objectives; it just might make things more
complicated. I would say that what we need to do is take a look
at the answers to the questions I have listed here. If those
answers are found within the Heritage Act, then that is something
worthy of a debate. We would love to see what those answers are
prior to committing to anything. You wouldn't buy a car before
taking a look at it or giving it a test drive. We shouldn't
accept legislation until we see exactly what it is and how it
impacts the community.
Mr Levac:
One quick question: are you familiar with Scott McWilliam?
Mr Giles:
Yes, I am.
Mr Levac:
Scott McWilliam shared with me almost verbatim the concerns
you've voiced, that the bill should actually be dropped and then
we work collectively as an entire community and industry for the
same premise that Mr Barrett is after but is ill-guided.
Mr Giles:
Right. The goal versus the means.
Mr Levac:
Exactly. In making that statement, Mr McWilliams is identified as
an expert. Would you concur that he is an expert in this
area?
Mr Giles:
Mr McWilliam is a very informed individual. I have reviewed much
of his material and have found it not lacking in any way. I think
that anytime you can bring someone who has a passion for
archaeology and experience with archaeology into the fold, we
can't help but come a step ahead. Even if it's a contrary
opinion, we need to hear it.
Mr
Gerretsen: One very quick question. I understand that
there are thousands of wrecks when you include the entire Great
Lakes area. How many of these wrecks would you consider to be
heritage wrecks?
Mr Giles:
If you're speaking to the archaeologist in me, you're going to
find that is one of the biggest, longest-outstanding debates, but
I think that is a matter to be determined by a broader group than
just myself. Heritage means many things to many people. Even as
we've seen in this country, as the years have moved forward we
have defined heritage more broadly as we see new issues. I would
say that we need to sit down and take a look at a lot of the
general questions and examine what others have taken a look at in
terms of heritage and share from there. I don't have an easy
answer for you. I wish I did.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Giles. We appreciate your coming forward today. I'm
sure Mr Barrett will avail himself of your expertise as we move
forward on this.
1640
SAVE ONTARIO SHIPWRECKS
The Chair:
Our next presentation will be from Save Ontario Shipwrecks, Mr
Tim Legate. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Mr Tim
Legate: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the
opportunity, on behalf of SOS and myself, to be here. It's been
very interesting listening to several of the comments and where
the bill is headed.
First of all I'd like to
personally thank Mr Barrett for bringing forward his bill. I
think it's been one of the most important milestones in marine
heritage to come along in many years, not so much because he's
got a wonderful bill, but because he has elevated the discussion;
he's brought it right up to the forefront, he has a bill before
the Legislature, and you gentlemen and ladies are sitting here
today really looking at the issues of Ontario's marine heritage
and the pros and cons. I think we've come further in that with Mr
Barrett's legislation since November than since we started to
look at the amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act some 10 or 12
years ago.
First of all, I'd like to
tell you a little bit about Save Ontario Shipwrecks. We are a
volunteer provincial heritage organization. We're totally
volunteer. We were incorporated in 1981. The aims of our
organization are the study, preservation and promotion of an
appreciation of Ontario's marine heritage. We have chapters right
from Ingleside to Windsor and up to Thunder Bay. We're pretty
well all over.
I guess we are one of the
few marine heritage organizations in Ontario; there are several
others more local in nature. We are primarily sport divers. We
are the avocational archaeologists you've heard mentioned, and
therefore we are also the dreaded special interest groups you
have heard about.
Myself, I've been a diver
and a scuba instructor for over 20 years. I've got some 2,000
dives under my belt. I've been involved in marine heritage for
the last 17 years-SOS, POW and so on. I've held some
archaeological licences for study under water, and I've been
involved in several. I worked very closely with the Ministry of
Citizenship and Culture for years and years.
That having been said, I do
feel there are some major problems with the bill. First of all,
to answer one of the questions that has been going around, Save
Ontario Shipwrecks believes very strongly that Ontario needs a
distinct Marine Heritage Act. Amendments to the Ontario Heritage
Act won't cut it. Why? First of all, because the Ontario Heritage
Act was designed with land-based sites-buildings and structures
and so on-in mind, and really addresses that sort of issue, a lot of
which is on individual property.
The other point is the
serious distinction between marine heritage and land-based
heritage. What is that? Basically, it speaks to value: what is
the value of Ontario's marine heritage? A lot of the debate
you're hearing today stems from the answer to that question.
Well, the answer is really twofold. There is a very major
diving-tourism-recreational component to value. That brings
economic values, where all these people want to dive. In Ontario,
the only place to really dive is shipwrecks. There are other
places, caves and so on, but primarily the diving that goes on in
this province is shipwreck diving.
On the other end is what I
would call the heritage value. What can these sites tell us about
our past and the development of Ontario? The committee needs to
understand the nature and the scope of what I would call
Ontario's marine heritage. The bill as it's worded is the Ontario
Marine Heritage Act, not the Ontario shipwreck act. Ontario's
marine heritage is far more than just shipwrecks. We have
submerged towns and villages. We have inundated aboriginal sites.
We have underwater caves with fossils that have washed out of the
limestone and are sitting on the bottom as wonderful
paleontological sites. All of these are more or less fragile and,
as they are visited, tend to deteriorate. So the first thing I
would request would be a broadening of the definition of
Ontario's marine heritage in this act to encompass all of these
types of sites. I think there is also a submerged forest down in
Toby's area that we've come across, is there not? So it's an
incredibly broad field.
Secondly, it's out of
sight, and anything that's out of sight is difficult to manage.
The best analogy I can give the committee is to take the Royal
Ontario Museum, turn off all the lights, remove all of the cases,
remove all of the security guards, don't keep any log of who's
going in and who's coming out, spread all the stuff around the
floor, and who cares where anybody walks. That's sort of what a
shipwreck site looks like.
I will make a statement
that my colleagues can argue with or take issue with if they
want. I don't care how good a diver is-and I'm pretty fair-you
cannot dive inside and around a shipwreck without doing damage,
period. As you visit these sites, they will be damaged. That's
just the nature of the beast. The same thing happens with the
pyramids, the same thing happens with everything. The more people
go through, the more damage it does to the sites. We have wrecks
out in the Brockville area, where I'm from, that get 200 to 300
visits a day. You've got divers swimming through, their bubbles
are going up-even if they don't touch the wreck, the bubbles are
going up, carrying silt, knocking off punky wood and so on.
Shipwrecks may look fairly
solid but they're really not. The water over the last 100 or 200
years has been washing away the structural integrity of the wood
itself, and if you put your hand on it and pull yourself around a
corner, you rub some off. One diver, more or less, isn't going to
do a lot of damage if he's careful, but put 3,000 divers on it in
a year and, the next thing you know, that corner is now all worn
away.
Does this mean that SOS
wants to legislate divers off wrecks? Not in any way, shape or
form. This is who we are. We love to dive on shipwrecks. We're
there because we want to be. So what does this really mean? What
it means to me is that we have a wonderful resource there, which
is non-renewable, largely, I hope-because who wants to see more
wrecks go down-and we must be as careful with it as we can. Yes,
by all means have access, but there are some wrecks-and in the
several hundred e-mails that we all played with last November,
most of them will begin with, "Yes, we all agree that some wrecks
need protection, but I want to be able to dive any wreck I want."
Somewhere there's a balance that has to be struck. In the
amendments Mr Barrett is proposing, I think he has the right
idea.
I envisaged three classes
of marine heritage sites; one would be a fairly robust site that
had very little heritage value and so, "Go dive on it all you
want. We don't really care. It's not a big issue. Go play." I
might cite the Wolfe Island wreck that was put down in Kingston
as a dive site as an example of that sort of thing.
The next class would be the
vast majority of shipwrecks, which are interesting dive sites,
have a very strong recreational component and probably a less
strong heritage component. These sites should be freely
accessible to divers but not with freedom to do anything you want
to do. With access comes responsibility. I believe that the dive
community has a duty of care when they're on these sites to look
after them. Anybody defacing or damaging them diminishes the
value significantly, not only from a heritage point of view but
from a recreational point of view. If somebody wants to go down
and do a significant amount of damage or take stuff off it, that
diminishes it for me. So you're going to have to figure out whose
toes you want to step on, and you're going to take some flak.
The third class of wreck
we've already mentioned, things like the Hamilton and Scourge,
the Atlantic, maybe the Wexford. I think there are some sites
that we need to be extremely careful what we do with. That
doesn't mean to say we can't let people dive them, but I think
some mechanism needs to be in place where we say, "All right, Mr
Legate, if you want to go down and take pictures of the Hamilton
and Scourge, first of all, do you have the capability of doing it
with a minimum of damage? Secondly, when are you going to go? How
are you going to go? What are we going to do with the material
you bring back up?" Let's just make sure that everything makes
sense. "Mr Legate, if you want to be down there on the Hamilton
and Scourge and do an archaeological project which is going to
dismantle the entire wreck"-once you tear it apart, as they did
in Red Bay, you can't put it back together. We don't allow that
indiscriminately either.
Somebody needs to make the
choice. Who should that be? Well, who owns these things? Who has
the value of heritage? I
had this discussion with a number of people over the Internet
and, I'm sorry, Mr Diver, it isn't yours. It isn't mine. It
belongs to the people of Ontario and the people of Canada. A lot
of the immigrants, in the immigration to this country, went
through the Great Lakes. So whether the guy in downtown Winnipeg
who likes to play tennis knows it or not, this is part of his
heritage, and at some point he may have some interest in it. So
it's not just the dive community that you need to take account
of; it's your other constituents.
1650
On the other hand,
significant wrecks such as Hamilton and Scourge have absolutely
no value if nobody ever looks at them or goes down and does the
archaeology. Those things have been known for 25 or 30 years;
nothing has been done. An archaeologist will say, "That's fine.
Somebody will come along in 100 years and do it." They have that
long-term mindset, and maybe that's no a bad approach.
The other major thing with
this bill, and anytime you're looking at this kind of
legislation, is to keep in mind the level of resources the
province is going to be prepared to put at marine heritage. We've
been in the marine heritage game for 20 years, and Save Ontario
Shipwrecks and the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture have been
one of the leading partnerships over the years-and with that I'll
include POW; sorry, I didn't mean to miss you-in bringing on
avocationals when it was not cool to do so. Notwithstanding that,
the province's total dedication to Ontario's marine heritage at
this point is one guy and a secretary in one office. Give me a
break.
I'm not lobbying. I don't
want millions of dollars for SOS. But when you consider that
there is marine heritage in every single river and every single
lake, and that it is probably easier to get information out of a
marine heritage site than out of a land-based site-and I cite
South Lake, for example, where instead of bringing up little
pieces of Indian pottery and spending hundreds of hours trying to
put the jigsaw puzzle together, these guys are bringing up entire
pots. It's stunning what's under there. But we don't know it all
because nobody is looking. The government doesn't have the
resources and isn't prepared to allocate resources, and I
understand that. We've got bigger fish to fry. But when you're
considering how we're going to handle this, the point has been
made, and it is absolutely true, that it has to be with the
goodwill of the dive community and it has to be basically an
educational effort.
Sometimes you start to
wonder. Last weekend they opened up a new wreck in Kingston, and
I heard about three divers who were sitting inside a lifeboat
hanging from a davit. Hello. That isn't going to stay long. What
are you going to do? Do I want to keep them off? No. I'd like to
give them a little brick alongside the ear. What do you do as a
diver? Last year we watched someone on a shipwreck grabbing beams
and trying to rip them off-just for fun; no reason. These guys
either just don't know it or don't get it.
From my point of view I
want some legislation where I can go and talk to this lad and
give him this little brick alongside the ear, and if I find him
doing it again, there are some people we're going to have to get
somebody else to come and stomp on a little bit. How we do that,
I'm not 100% sure.
I'd like to open up for
questions. If someone takes issue with me or if you guys and
ladies have any questions, I'd love to look at it.
The Chair:
Unfortunately you've taken the full 15 minutes, but we've been a
little flexible with each group so far. This time we'll start the
questioning with the government, but I'm going to limit it
strictly to one minute per caucus.
Mr
Barrett: You indicated three classes of wrecks, and I
assume these would be on a list. My amendment proposes two
classes that prescribe, say, those 10 or 20 wrecks you would
basically need a licence to go on. You could go on the other
ones, but don't damage them. This actually came up earlier today:
does the minister decide, do the bureaucrats decide which are the
precious wrecks, or do we need a board of some kind drawing on-I
look at the expertise in this room today. Any suggestions?
Mr Legate:
It makes sense to me. I think the board makes a lot of sense, and
that board should include some sport-diving people, some
archaeological people and some lay people. Somebody has to come
up with this balance somewhere along the line. I think the
legislation and the regulations need to spell out what is
important in each area.
One thing I forgot to
mention is that the reason I came up with three sites is that on
the average dive site I would really like to see it mandatory
that there be a mooring in place if somebody is going to go there
with a charter or take students on these sites. More damage is
being done by anchors of boats going into shipwrecks than there
is by people swimming around them. It's a really serious problem.
I think we need to attack that head-on. In that regard, it would
be really nice if we could pry some money out of the province.
Again, that will be a real co-operative venture between the two,
where these moorings get installed. But I think that for the vast
majority of those wrecks that are being commercially exploited it
be required for them to have moorings.
That having been said, you
also need to understand a little bit about the dive industry:
there's not a lot of money in it. A lot of these boats, these
charter operators, are guys who are semi-retired and they're just
trying to get enough money for to pay for their boats. So they're
not making hundreds of dollars here; these are just break-even
propositions.
Mr Levac:
I'll be brief. It sounds to me like you have indicated that you
do have some problems with the bill because of the scope and
everything else. Our previous speaker offered some suggestions. I
guess the best question we can ask at this moment-because I think
everybody has come to an agreement that there have been some real
concerns with the bill and the process-is that you're definitely
not in favour of looking at the Ontario Heritage Act as a vehicle to correct that
problem, except would you, along with the other groups that have
made the offer-and I'm sure the rest of the groups will make the
same offer-assist us to create a hybrid of Bill 13?
Mr Legate:
Underwater Canada, Save Ontario Shipwrecks and the Ontario
Underwater Council agreed and have a memo of understanding that
we will co-chair a forum on a marine heritage act. One of the
reasons I'm a little skeptical about the Ontario Heritage Act is
that I was involved in its revision starting about 10 years ago.
I've watched it work through. There's one sitting on the shelf,
but it isn't going to go anywhere; fair enough.
The answer to your question
is yes, we will work together and we will host and provide the
forum for that.
Mr Levac:
I thank you for that, because that, to me, is what we're looking
for. I'm absolutely convinced, and I won't speak for Toby, but I
do understand the intent of what he said earlier, that that's
what he's looking for. I don't know that we're really reinventing
the wheel, except getting the best possible legislation we
can.
Mr
Christopherson: If I could pick up where Mr Levac was,
Mr Giles talked a lot, and I was asking questions-and I know you
were here-about the BC experience. Would you concur that that's a
model that (a) works for BC and (b) would achieve the goals that
certainly you at SOS would like to see?
Mr Legate:
Largely that is true. I've worked fairly closely with Tom
Beasley, who was the previous president of UASBC, and we've had a
lot of discussions. Their experience is a little different from
ours, but it's still very much along the same lines, and he would
be an integral part of that forum. There is also some very
interesting stuff going on in Australia where on their
significant heritage sites they mark off an area of about 200
hectares and boating and diving is not permitted in there. So for
the police, from the enforcement side, if you find a guy sitting
there on top of his boat and he's got a bunch of scuba tanks,
he's got an offence right there and that's all you have to worry
about. You don't have to prove he was down there; you don't have
to prove he did the damage. That would be for the very few sites
which you want to be really careful with.
One other point: you talked
about limiting diving on sites with human remains. We have wrecks
in Kingston that are dived constantly that have human remains. I
will pose the question: what do you do when you come across human
remains on a shipwreck site? Why is it any different than if you
came across human remains in a national park? First of all, how
do you know that what you found belonged to the shipwreck? How do
you know it wasn't that somebody killed somebody and dropped the
body there? Do you leave them there? Do you cover it up and turn
it into a gravesite? Do you put a headstone on it? Do you bring
them up and re-inter the bodies? I don't know the answer to
those. But if you're going to limit that, you're going to take
out probably 20% of the known wrecks now that are dived. Yes, we
have had to take back the odd jawbone and put it back where it
belonged, and that's happened in Kingston several times. There
are people out there who just don't get it. What can I tell
you?
The Chair:
Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming all this way to
make a presentation today.
1700
KINGSTON DIVING CENTRE
The Chair:
Similarly, from the Kingston area, our next presentation will be
the Kingston Diving Centre. Good afternoon. Welcome to the
committee.
Mr Nick
Drakich: Good afternoon. Thank you for having me speak
at this committee meeting. Trying to follow up on what has been
stated before by the other presenters, again you have to look at
working with the diving industry and working with the divers with
respect to any legislation. I'm a director and owner-operator of
Kingston Diving Centre. I'm in the diving tourism business. I'm a
member and a past director for Preserve Our Wrecks, Kingston, a
marine heritage group for preserving shipwrecks. I'm a member and
a past director for the Ontario Underwater Council. I've been
involved in diving since 1967, with marine heritage for the last
20 years and with the diving tourism industry in the last 10.
I've seen a lot of changes
over the years: 20 years ago you had one in every 10 divers
taking artifacts off the shipwrecks; 10 years ago maybe one in
100; today, maybe one in 1,000. We have through our own
self-regulation improved the preservation of the shipwrecks
enormously. With respect, as Tim mentioned, the moorings, the
anchor damage had been the greatest damage to the shipwrecks.
Preserve Our Wrecks puts moorings out every year, and with that
we've had a lot of protection and saved a lot of damage that
could have taken place. What we have is the industry working
together and also working together with the government and
government agencies.
The situation where I have
a difficulty with Bill 13 is that up until now shipwrecks in the
Great Lakes have been under the jurisdiction of the Canada
Shipping Act, the federal jurisdiction. That has addressed the
shipwrecks. When somebody finds a shipwreck, you have to report
it to the receiver of wrecks at which time determination of
ownership is made by the receiver of wrecks. This has been the
only real protection we've had in place for the shipwrecks, and
many have felt that that has been inadequate. I believe that Mr
Barrett brought forth this provincial legislation, this bill,
because the federal legislation has not been adequate. However,
the federal legislation is being revised. Bill C-35 has already
passed first reading and is being reviewed. The Canada Shipping
Act, part VII, with respect to shipwrecks, is being revised to
cover heritage shipwrecks, to actually put in better
protection.
What I find with having
provincial and federal legislation, two different pieces of
legislation, coming forth, is a conflict being created here with
the establishment of Bill 13 and Bill C-35. So the issue has to
be re-addressed with respect to what's happening with the federal
legislation and there
has to be greater provincial and federal co-operation in working
on developing this preservation.
I'm not very familiar with
legislative procedures or how the legislators work together on
these issues at the different government levels, or if they do. I
am having to deal, though, with whatever legislation there is,
and there have been a number of-again, this is one matter that is
coming up. Within the issue itself one of the points that has not
been mentioned has been ownership. As I've said, you had to go to
the receiver of wrecks to establish ownership. To my
understanding, that still is the law and that means Ontario,
wishing to establish ownership of a shipwreck, would have to go
and establish it through the receiver of wrecks, as everybody
else does.
I have my limited
understanding of the process here, but we do have a conflict when
we have legislation already in place and we are now looking at
bringing in new legislation. We are creating a conflict. I don't
think we need to create that conflict.
I think Mr Barrett has
brought this issue forward because it needs to be addressed. As
to Bill 13 addressing it, I think it was drawn up without
realizing all the complexity of the issue. The months that it has
been developed are very little compared to the years the Canada
Shipping Act has been developed and the part with respect to
shipwrecks.
I would like to see
something else done in place of Bill 13 to accommodate the
federal legislation and have everyone working together to come up
with a method of really preserving the wrecks and allowing the
diving industry to grow. It's something that hasn't been
mentioned.
The other issue that hasn't
been mentioned is ownership and liability issues. We're evolving
from that. If you take ownership of a shipwreck, what are you
liable for? What do you have to do with respect to that? Is there
actually a need to establish ownership? I believe that in British
Columbia they don't establish ownership; I think Randy talked
about that. They allow access to the shipwrecks and they also
protect the wrecks, saying you're not to take anything or destroy
anything. This is what we're looking at. Ownership is not a
matter of whether somebody owns a shipwreck or not; they can be
protected without having to establish ownership. I believe that
can be done. That's it.
The Chair:
OK. Thank you. You've left time for a very quick question from
each caucus.
Mr
Gerretsen: Thank you very much, first of all, for coming
here on such short notice, Nick. I understand you were only
advised that there was time available maybe a couple of days ago,
so thanks for that.
Could you just address the
tourist potential? You're an operator. What would it mean to your
business if this legislation, the way it sits right now, were
passed?
Mr
Drakich: The biggest point is restriction of access for
tourism. We're competing with the state of Michigan; they're
there in the Great Lakes. They actually have a written guarantee
of access in their legislation to allow sport diving, people to
go and visit any shipwreck. This is a big drawing card for them.
They have been able to advertise this and get tourists to come
there and go diving.
For Kingston and the
Islands, for our area-for all the Great Lakes in Ontario,
actually-we have a lot of divers. The bulk now are starting to
come from the northeastern United States. They come here with
their tourist dollars. That's money coming into Ontario, money
coming into Canada. If you take away that access, if you can't
guarantee them that access, they will be looking toward Michigan
or going to the east coast. It takes away from our ability to
draw the tourist dollar in. So it would be restrictive access.
Again, I had this discussion with Mr Barrett. It was my key
argument, when I had met him, that we need to guarantee access or
we will lose our business.
Mr
Christopherson: A question, and if you aren't able to
answer it, then maybe Mr Richmond can enlighten us or commit to
it: what is the separation of constitutional responsibilities
with regard to the federal and the provincial over the
shipwrecks? Does anybody know?
The Chair:
Do you wish to comment on that or are we going to ask the
researcher?
Mr
Drakich: I don't have the legal expertise down. To the
best of my knowledge, the shipwrecks are actually under the
federal jurisdiction of the Canada Shipping Act.
Mr Jerry
Richmond: I will convey that concern to one of our staff
lawyers and they will prepare an appropriate memo for the
committee. We will clarify.
Mr
Christopherson: I think it's very important because,
first of all, we want to make sure you're in areas where we can
legislate, and second, if there's an overlap, and I suspect there
might be, then we want to make sure there's coordination going
on, particularly if the feds have already got a bill in the
House, as we heard here today.
Mr
Richmond: We will clarify that.
1710
Mr
Barrett: Thank you, Nick. We met at the dive show last
year. The issue with the Canada Shipping Act, I do know last
November, came up and it was unclear where it was heading or when
that would be wrapped up. For that reason I did make an amendment
under section 10, striking out the phrase "on the day it receives
royal assent," if this is passed, and substituting "on the day to
be named by proclamation by the Lieutenant Governor." My
understanding was that this work with this legislation wouldn't
get the final seal until we find out what the Canada Shipping Act
is going to say. We're left hanging. I understand that's why we
will wait on the Canada Shipping Act. How long would we wait?
There may be a federal election. I don't know what impact that
would have on that bill.
I might mention too, in the
amendments I'm suggesting that section 3 be eliminated. That
states, "The crown in right of Ontario owns every heritage wreck
and protected artifact." We could delete that. We don't own them.
But again, with that Atlantic case, at that time when the California pirates, as
I refer to them, were diving and removing artifacts, it seemed
for a while that Ontario or Canada couldn't prove that we owned
that wreck even though it was on crown land. There was a court
case, as I understand, that determined Ontario owned it, although
the artifacts did go to the receiver of wrecks.
Whether we want to own them
or not, diving is a fairly risky business, whether the people of
Ontario want to take on the liability of people who are diving.
These are some questions that are unanswered that I'm hoping to
accommodate in these two amendments.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Barrett, and thank you very much for coming all the
way from Kingston. We appreciate your comments very much.
DIVER CITY CHARTERS
The Chair:
Our final presenter this afternoon will be Diver City Charters.
Brian Taylor, good afternoon and welcome to the committee.
Mr Brian
Taylor: I'd like to thank everybody for listening to me
too. I'd like to try and figure out what hasn't been said.
Everything I have on my checklist has been checked here, so I'd
just like to maybe reiterate on a few key issues.
I'm owner-operator of a
dive charter business. I'm a member of Preserve Our Wrecks. I've
filmed wrecks for Presqu'ile museum. I've been working with
marine heritage and dive tourism for the last 10 years.
One of the things that Bill
13 doesn't address is anchoring. I'm not saying particularly
divers; I've as many times come across fishermen using these
wrecks when I'm out there on the water. Preserve Our Wrecks has
provided moorings and some kind of policing for this for a number
of years. Nobody has really talked that much about Preserve Our
Wrecks. I feel that their work with the coast guard-in the past
the coast guard has helped put these mooring blocks, which are
massive, several tonnes, and a good thick line, maybe several
inches in diameter-they're expensive. These are raised through
private donations and charitable donations. They've been doing a
great job on this.
I haven't seen too much on
Bill 13 regarding this. I think after today these issues probably
will be pointed out and dealt with. I'm a PADI instructor. A lot
of the things that Randy said reflect my personal training and my
understanding of what heritage is. His mission statement is
probably very similar to mine.
Another point I'd like to
bring up is human remains. Several of these wrecks we are diving
right now have human remains. I don't know how to deal with that
issue either, but I'd hate to see wrecks closed for diving on
that one point because they have been dived for the last 10 to 15
years without any disturbing of the human remains, and several
people know where they are.
Self-policing comes into
this. The charter boat guys are the ones who are on the water. We
see the OPP out there but they don't venture more than a couple
of miles from shore. We're 12 to 15 miles from shore. I can't see
the OPP having jurisdiction that's working when we're over the
horizon. They can't even see us from shore.
That brings up the
lighthouse issue with radar and stuff. I think they're tearing
down lighthouses too. Where are we going to put these things?
How this is going to affect
me is I'm a full-time charter operator, one of the few, who makes
my living entirely on charter operations. It's only about three
or four months of the year, so I have a long time to repair my
boats in the wintertime.
With the added regulations
from the Coast Guard, they also have stepped up their monitoring
of the vessels to make them safer. I don't know if this is a
result of developments that have happened in the Great Lakes, but
we already pay money to the Coast Guard for maintenance of the
navigational buoys and they already have a substantial
contribution in the mooring buoys. This is a federal concern.
Again, as Nick said, I'd be interested in seeing how Bill C-35
handles the whole heritage issue.
If Bill 13 does restrict
diving or even the regulation incurs more cost to the dive
operators, this is going to make it so we can afford to run fewer
boats. The sport is growing. There are more divers than there are
boats right now in the Kingston area; it's a huge resource. This
not only affects the divers; the dollars they spend in Kingston
on a charter, maybe a quarter of that would go to the actual
charter. The major expenditure is in hotels, restaurants, night
life, fuel to get here and back from home-which can be far away,
it can be the northern states, it can be Quebec; it's people from
all over the northeastern North America-kids' day care even comes
into it, entertainment, souvenirs, tips and gratuities for the
people working on the boats and in the restaurants. It will all
be lost forever if these boats go off the water, if the
opportunity for the dive boats fades away due to overlegislation
or just cost, which is what I'm worried about. It's killing a
market that's growing that I'm worried about with this bill.
That's about all I can add.
Again, the bill is well-intended. Heritage is-without these
wrecks, I don't have a business. So I certainly applaud the
intent of the bill; I just hate to see things get all bogged down
in legislation or tying up these wrecks for years and years while
bureaucrats decide what we can dive on-the class 1, class 2,
class 3 wrecks. Access is the key, to reiterate what everybody
else has said. I'd like to see the access guaranteed on the
wrecks.
The Chair:
This time the questions will start with Mr Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: Just to see if we've got total
unanimity-which does not happen very often around here at all-are
you like-minded in thinking that there's a way to achieve all the
goals that we have, both by looking at other models and being
somewhat creative?
Mr Taylor:
I think looking at other models is a good idea. I'm not sure that
Bill 13 can be torn apart and put back together or whether it
should be new legislation.
Mr Christopherson: But the goal of
finding a balance that everyone can live with, without having a
world of winners and losers, you think is achievable too?
Mr Taylor:
Absolutely, there's a balance out there, for sure. I have been on
wrecks and I have seen people bringing up items that are
artifacts, that have been hundreds of years old, and I have been
instrumental in replacing these artifacts back on the wreck. With
each dive crew that I send down, with each group of divers, it's
right in my speech when I'm telling them about the wreck. I tell
them what they're going to find on the wreck and I tell them not
to touch it; to leave it there for other divers. Education is
key. When I'm teaching divers in my open-water course, I touch on
this subject several times over five or six nights of training.
We get back to what they're going to see on the wreck, because a
lot of these guys think they're going out treasure hunting. So
you have to educate. Most people are not ill-intentioned; I think
it's only a few people who actually are going to go out and
pillage the wrecks. Like Nick says, 20 years ago maybe one in 10
divers brought home a souvenir; 10 years ago maybe one in 100;
now I think it's probably less than one in 1,000. I think those
numbers are pretty close.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you very much for your
contribution today.
1720
Mr Garfield Dunlop
(Simcoe North): Mr Taylor, up in my part of the country,
we're on Georgian Bay so we only see the Coast Guard, but I'm
curious about the jurisdiction with the Americans when you get
into Kingston and the Thousand Islands. Do you ever come across
any kind of disputes?
Mr Taylor:
They have guns on their boats. I don't have guns on mine. We
don't dive too much in US wrecks. We don't do money transactions
on their side and vice versa. That's basically the way it works.
Now there's a fine line there, but we don't run into it that
much.
Mr Dunlop:
So it's not very often that you hear of a dispute of where the
wreckage actually is?
Mr Taylor:
Oh, the wreckage is on GPS coordinates. We can tell within 10
feet of where that is. If that is on one side of the dotted line
or the other or if it's split in two, we can tell immediately. As
far as I know, all the dive shops on the US side work in
conjunction with us. It's a very good working relationship right
now. I don't know of any issues. Most of my divers, by the way,
are American. I would say probably two thirds of my divers are
from the States, bringing tourist dollars in.
Mr
Gerretsen: I just have one question. Thank you, Brian,
as well for coming on such short notice. I know you can only
speak for yourself but obviously you've got a lot of contacts
with a lot of the other professional charter boat operators etc.
Would you say that the attitude you've displayed here today, the
kind of warnings or the kind of instructions you give to the
divers, is standard with respect to most of the people you know,
or do you have any comments on that?
Mr Taylor:
Absolutely across the board. We have a charter boat organization.
We discuss these issues. We work closely with Preserve Our Wrecks
on these issues. Everybody's interest is in preserving these
wrecks. There is nobody I know who takes out charters for money,
who is commercially involved, who will even allow a bottle to be
brought up, even if it's a beer bottle.
Mr
Gerretsen: How much diving is done privately, without
the use of charter boats? Do people go out there on their
own?
Mr Taylor:
Yes. This is part of where the education comes in with dive
training. PADI already has in place a project. Randy talked about
it. Part of my training in Project Aware and part of my training
with the divers is to point out respect for property, to keep
this around for our kids. My kids are both divers. I would like
them to see the stuff that I've seen underwater. They have a
better opportunity now with the zebra mussels clearing up the
water, stuff that I couldn't see until I bumped into it. I
certainly think this is across the board with all the divers in
the Kingston area and, as far as I know, up the St Lawrence. From
what I've heard from all the other chapters of SOS, I think it's
pretty well across the board with everybody, except for a few-the
minority-which is probably where this legislation is aimed.
Mr Levac:
First of all, let me thank you for your patience and your
flexibility. Also, on behalf of our caucus, I'd like to say to
all of our presenters, thank you very much for giving us insight
into areas where we needed to have it.
Just a quick question. Are
you aware of a provincial, national or international association
for the kind of charters that you represent and, if so, would you
be willing to participate in the group that was named earlier to
help give input into the design of a bill?
Mr Taylor:
Interestingly enough, I just talked to Randy about that in a
meeting last week. In the Kingston area especially, it's very
hard. We encompass NAUI, PADI, PDIC, ACUC and even some of the
European dive training organizations, with Queen's University,
and people coming in from all over the world literally to dive.
We are talking about it but, again, I would be open to any
direction that can unify everybody in all the agencies toward a
good-
Mr Levac:
Hybrid bill.
Mr Taylor:
-resolution to this problem.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Taylor. I appreciate your coming all the way.
To all the presenters, we
appreciate your taking the time to raise our understanding and
awareness of this situation. I look forward to hearing further
submissions next week and quite possibly longer than that.
Mr Levac:
Mr Chair, can we be notified, if indeed we do get that deluge of
other people who want to present, quickly enough so we can
contact those people and indicate-is there a process that we have
in place for that?
The Chair:
The undertaking has been made to people via the parliamentary
channel and the Internet to express their intentions. If their expressions are made
to the clerk, we will respond to them. Obviously it's first come,
first served for next Wednesday. On next Wednesday, when the
deadline will have passed for the submission of requests, we'll
be able to consider as a committee how much more time we need to
process any other requests that have come in.
Mr Levac:
I need to point something out to you. I received an e-mail that
indicated that they didn't get any feedback from the clerk when
they sent in a request to be presenters.
The Chair:
Before this actual invitation went out?
Mr Levac:
Maybe that's the problem.
The Chair:
I think you'll find from the correspondence we've been receiving
over the last year, many people have said, "Let me know when
there are hearings." That notice would have gone out just last
Friday. If you do in fact hear of anyone who is having problems
contacting the clerk, they can contact me, or you can pass the
information on. We'll make sure it gets processed.
Mr Levac:
I appreciate that.
The Chair:
With that, the committee stands adjourned until 3:30 next
Wednesday.
