Of special interest should be Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): speaking on Erie Quest in the Leamington area. "the annual gross spending on diving tourism in the Leamington-Essex area is over $5 million. The value added beyond that is estimated to be around $4 million. It employs almost 100 people, and the employment income exceeds $3 million." He later goes on to mention that this Bill as written could ruin diving tourism in the area, but it is our understanding that the Bill was later passed by as vast majority (almost unanimously.)
Also Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek):speaking
of the Hamilton & Scourge wrecks actually believes
that divers are diving these 305' and 310' deep wrecks on a regular basis
and are stealing the skeletal remains of the crew.
1st session, 37th Parliament | 1re session, 37e législature
Thu 25 Nov 1999 / Jeu 25 nov 1999
The House met at 1004.
Prayers.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS
ONTARIO MARINE HERITAGE ACT, 1999 / LOI DE 1999 SUR LE PATRIMOINE MARIN DE L'ONTARIO
Mr Barrett moved second reading of the following bill:
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.
Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): The
purpose of the Ontario Marine Heritage
Act is to enhance the protection and preservation of
Ontario's marine heritage resources and to
promote tourism.
By way of introduction, I wish to take you back 320 years.
On September 18, 1679, the French
explorer LaSalle watched his ship, the Griffon, set sail
on Lake Huron, only to vanish without a
trace. To this day, the Griffon remains the quest of
countless divers and historians. Since 1679 there
have been hundreds of storms and collisions on the Great
Lakes, sinking thousands of ships and
resulting in countless lives being lost.
On November 10, 1999, the 24th anniversary of the sinking
of the Edmund Fitzgerald, I announced
my intention to introduce the Ontario Marine Heritage
Act. For years divers, historians and
conservationists have argued that a new Marine Heritage
Act is needed to ensure that the hundreds
of wrecks lying in Ontario's waters are protected. These
views pushed me to draft a bill that deals
specifically with the protection of marine heritage.
The first European explorers came to Canada and Ontario
by water. Trade in our country was built
on furs and years of endless travel along inland waterways.
Later, the Great Lakes became one of
the busiest shipping lanes in the world, the backbone
of commerce in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba
and neighbouring US states. For example, in 1880 there
were over 3,000 commercial vessels on
the lakes, compared to approximately 200 today. This
volume of traffic on the Great Lakes in the
mid- to late 1800s was astounding.
Unfortunately, this also meant a higher incidence of disaster.
A sudden and raging storm, a collision
or an error of navigation can sink a vessel all too easily.
Some say the Great Lakes have an almost
insatiable appetite for sailors, passengers and ships.
From cargo ships to canoes, our lakes and our
rivers have not played favourites. Once a boat leaves
port, there is always a chance it will run into a
stiff gale, an exposed rock or another ship. Lack of
communication, navigational aids and ship
wreckers made travel especially dangerous in the 18th
and 19th centuries.
The dangers faced by sailors differed throughout the lakes.
Lake Erie is shallow and vicious,
especially in the Long Point area. Lake Superior, as
we know, is deep and cold, with a history of
furious November gales like the one that took the Edmund
Fitzgerald. Lakes Ontario, Huron,
Michigan and St Clair have proven to be no less treacherous.
Georgian Bay is filled with scores of
camouflaged reefs and thousands of rock-encrusted islands.
They have laid many a good ship and
her crew to permanent rest.
In the two decades between 1878 and 1898, the US government
reported 5,999 vessels wrecked
on the Great Lakes, and of those 1,093 were total losses.
1010
Very recently, this summer, a Port Dover resident, Jim
Murphy, wrote to me urging tougher marine
heritage protection for the shipwrecks and the artifacts
that lie in Ontario's water. Mr Murphy
pointed out that the dive tourism industry was booming
in Lake Erie partly because the water has
cleared in recent years due to the zebra mussel and quagga
mussel activity.
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 and salvors."
Marine archaeology has also gained attention with the
1996 court decision concerning the
steamship Atlantic and Port Dover diver Mike Fletcher.
The collision and sinking of the steamer
Atlantic in Lake Erie occurred on August 20, 1852, and
with up to 250 lives lost was one of the
worst disasters on the lakes. In that court case, the
court ruled that all shipwrecks and their
associated artifacts located on Ontario's crown land
are the property of the province. The court
case of the steamship Atlantic was publicized across
North America and this Atlantic decision put
divers and salvors on notice that the wrecks and the
artifacts lying in Ontario lakes and rivers are
the property of the crown. These factors, along with
the importance that divers and marine
historians across the province have put on protecting
marine heritage, led me to draft a bill that
would ensure that shipwrecks and other marine heritage
sites are protected.
Under our current laws, the Ontario Heritage Act legislation
does not specifically address marine
issues. For example, the words "shipwreck" or "marine"
do not appear in current heritage
legislation. While it is well-meaning, people have told
me that the heritage act needs to be
supplemented with a clear message on the protection of
heritage sites. This bill deals with current
weaknesses in marine archaeological protection that I
and others have identified.
This proposed Ontario Marine Heritage Act will make it
illegal for anyone to enter a heritage wreck
unless he or she is licensed to do so. It will also be
an offence for non-licensed people to move part
of a heritage wreck or remove silt or other naturally
occurring substances in or around marine
heritage sites. The Minister of Citizenship, Culture
and Recreation can exempt specific sites from
these rules if the site is deemed to be less historically
significant or if the site has been explored
repeatedly.
Under this proposed legislation, it will be an offence
to remove a protected artifact from a marine
heritage site unless the person is licensed to do so.
The act is meant to ensure that divers are
careful, and 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.
Some divers use this fact to keep newly discovered wrecks
and artifacts to themselves. My bill
requires that anyone who finds a shipwreck notify the
Minister of Citizenship, Culture and
Recreation of the nature and location of the wreck as
soon as possible. As well, the minister will be
required to publish a record of known marine heritage
sites.
There will be tough penalties under the Ontario Marine
Heritage Act. Anyone contravening the act
will be subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and a jail
term of up to one year. If a corporation is
involved, the maximum fine jumps to $250,000. The bill
also gives the OPP the power to seize
vessels or equipment used to contravene the provisions
of the Marine Heritage Act. If convicted of
an offence, the court may award any seized property to
the crown.
However, this proposed legislation is not intended to
be a barrier to recreational divers. It is meant
to educate people that shipwrecks are a precious and
non-renewable resource.
Ontario has a strong marine history. Many, unfortunately,
have perished while on the water,
shipping merchandise or protecting our country. One cannot
help but admire and respect the sailors
of the Great Lakes. I believe we should honour the memories
of these men and women by
respecting their resting places. This legislation will
do that, and help to ensure that others respect
them as well.
Will this affect the salvage industry? The answer is no.
Salvors still have the opportunity to put in a
claim on a ship that sinks. The wreck only becomes the
crown's property if it is abandoned. The
legislation deals more directly with abandoned wrecks
already on the bottom of our lakes and
rivers. If a ship were to go down now, the owners, the
insurance companies or any legitimate
salvors would have rights to the ship unless it's abandoned.
With respect to other jurisdictions, I've researched this
in both Michigan and Nova Scotia and they
are going down a similar road. Only a few places in the
world are in this situation, and Ontario
probably has as many shipwrecks lying in its waters as
any other place in the world.
In conclusion, I believe this proposed legislation will
be a good first step in protecting and
preserving Ontario's thousands of heritage wrecks. Protection
of marine heritage sites is very
important to our diving community and to our growing
dive tourism industry. Dive tourism and
shipwreck protection go hand in hand, and I call on all
members to pass this legislation. I look
forward to any comments or constructive criticism.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Further debate?
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I'm pleased to stand
this morning and comment on this bill that has
been brought forward by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant.
I wanted to support this bill, but I want to point out
a significant problem. Oftentimes we have
complex problems and we say simple solutions might solve
them. But usually the simple solutions
are wrong.
The member says the prohibited activities would be moving
part of a heritage wreck or disturbing
the silt or other substances that lie in a marine heritage
wreck. That's pretty broad. It might cause
some difficulties, but the intent is good. We all agree
that removing a protected artifact or damaging
the wreck should not happen.
The problem I have is that the one activity that would
be prohibited is entering the physical portion
of a heritage wreck. A huge part of tourism diving is
being able to go into these wrecks, to go
through the wreck, if you like. This says you have to
be licensed. I'm not sure how the licensing
would be carried out: who the licensing authority would
be, what the regulations would be, and how
a tourist from somewhere in the United States or around
the world would get licensed.
Interjections.
Mr Crozier: I agree with that, but let me tell
you what it's going to do. I'll give you a little history of
what has gone on in our area.
In 1987 we started to look into diving as a tourism venture
in the Pelee Passage. In 1991, in the
Leamington area, we got the Windsor chapter of SOS, Save
Our Shipwrecks, involved. In 1991
we also got the Ministry of Tourism and the Convention
and Visitors Bureau of Windsor, Essex
County and Pelee Island involved. In 1992 the town of
Leamington made a decision to take a lead
role in this tourism venture. In 1993 they brought in
experts to give advice on how this should be
done, and in 1995 it was more or less completed. Not
only will this create a problem, I think, for
what is called ErieQuest in the Essex area, but for years
we've had the Fathom Five diving park in
Tobermory. Diver magazine, for example, says, "Leamington,
located at the northwestern end of
Lake Erie, is fast becoming North America's dive centre."
It may interest you to know that since the
mid-1800s, over 275 ships have been recorded as being
sunk somewhere in the Pelee Passage,
between Point Pelee and Pelee Island. To date, there
are 50 known locations of shipwreck sites in
the Pelee Passage.
1020
There is a great history to these shipwrecks. Of course,
over that period of time and number of
wrecks, the cargo that was lost included food supplies,
wood such as oak and walnut, and grain,
ore and coal. Much of that was salvaged at the time and/or
washed up on the shore.
The majority of the wrecks in the Pelee Passage lie in
waters that are an average of 12 metres or
40 feet deep, the deepest being the ship Willis, a wreck
that rests in approximately 22.5 metres or
74 feet of water.
The largest ship at the Pelee Passage wreck site is a
wooden steamer called the Case. It was built
in 1889 and sank in 1917. The Case was a large ship for
the day. It was 91.7 metres or 301 feet
long, 13 metres wide--42 1/2 feet for those of us who
are not yet into the metric system--and had a
draft of about 6.7 metres or 22 feet.
Shipwrecks are in fact artificial reefs, which provide
a very attractive habitat for fish and many other
marine organisms. It might interest people to know that
underwater visibility has increased in Lake
Erie in the last few years, from a low of about three
metres or 10 feet, to a sightline now of 12
metres or 40 feet or more. This is greatly due to the
much heralded and somewhat maligned zebra
mussel.
The town of Leamington spearheaded development of the
preservation--and I emphasize the word
"preservation"--of the local submerged cultural and marine
heritage. The name of the project is
ErieQuest Marine Heritage Area. Of the 4,000 documented
shipwrecks in the Great Lakes and the
250 in the Pelee Passage, 50, as I mentioned before,
have already been found. Of these wrecks,
15 have been marked with a mooring buoy system so that
the tourism diving public can have access
to them.
Shipwreck exploring provides a unique insight into the
heroic and tragic stories, the history of life
and travel on the Great Lakes, and features the marine
life and geographical aspects of the lake.
Local dive shops and charter operations fully service
the dive area. The industry is providing
lessons, equipment rentals and excursions, and non-diver
excursions are also available for those
who are equally curious. A heritage interpretive centre
has been opened in Leamington, so that the
public can have an on-land experience of the shipwrecks
in Lake Erie.
I would emphasize too that there are direct, indirect
and included economic impacts for the
Leamington area that this piece of legislation would
have a detrimental effect on if it were passed in
its form today. For example, the annual gross spending
on diving tourism in the Leamington-Essex
area is over $5 million. The value added beyond that
is estimated to be around $4 million. It
employs almost 100 people, and the employment income
exceeds $3 million.
As I said at the outset, I think the legislation and the
intent are good. The problem I see with it is
that it would appear to prevent a diver, licensed or
unlicensed, from actually entering a wreck.
Some of these older ships, unlike the freighters that
ply the lakes today, are smaller and probably
prohibit the diver from going into them because of their
very superstructure. Certainly, getting close
to the wreck, being able to go through those wrecks that
allow that, is part of the attraction for
tourism diving.
If this bill is to proceed--and I have some real questions
as to whether it should, in fact, proceed as
a private member's bill, and a colleague of mine will
speak to that--we have to be very careful in
order to attain the objectives that we want. I re-emphasize:
I agree with the objectives of not
damaging a heritage wreck, not removing artifacts. In
fact, had I had the opportunity, and I just
didn't, to research this further, I suspect there are
penalties in place now, either provincial or
federal. If those need to be tightened up, that's fine.
We have a tourism industry that's just in its beginnings.
Its potential is just starting. We have to be
very careful that we simply don't shut that down. I'm
afraid that this private member's bill, as it's
drafted now, would do that, and I think that's the wrong
thing to do.
The Acting Speaker: I would remind the members
that if they wish to have private conversations,
outside this chamber would be the better place.
Further debate?
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to
speak to this bill because I think it's an
important bill.
As you say, rare are those moments when you can stand
up here in the opposition and agree with
something that the government does. It's a rare moment.
It's almost a pleasure to be able to speak
to something that this government member has introduced
today, that I can support. I want to say
to this member and to the Conservative members that a
whole lot of people in the heritage
community are very excited by this.
I've been speaking to Jane Beecroft, whom I consider a
friend. She's from the Heritage Toronto
establishment. She was excited when she heard about this
proposed bill that was to be debated
here today. The reason why she is excited is because
it is a rare moment when governments speak
to heritage and speak to how we protect that heritage,
so when she has a member who is about to
introduce this--and I can see that we're going to have
support by the others--she's very excited and
I'm excited.
I was the Minister of Culture many, many years ago. I
knew it was very difficult in that ministry to
give the kind of equity that everybody deserved. I felt
heritage, those who worked in the archives,
in the museums, libraries, deserved to get their fair
share of funding that they weren't getting in that
ministry. In pursuing that objective of equity, we thought
it was time to change the Ontario Heritage
Act, because it's way overdue.
I began that process of consulting with a whole lot of
people in the heritage field. We had many
meetings, in fact. That was a long process of involvement
in consulting people in the heritage sector
about what we needed to do to update our heritage laws.
I began that work; the minister who
followed me continued with the work; the minister that
followed that minister continued the work;
and eventually we didn't introduce the act. That would
have been a benefit. It would have been
something that would have uplifted the spirits of those
who calmly and passively and quietly, but
greatly, do the work of heritage in our community.
I would say that the New Democrats at the time failed
the heritage community. We did. It was a bill
that could easily have been passed, but we didn't do
it. Then this government had an opportunity to
be able to do some of the work that we started. They
had four years. Of course, they've done
nothing.
1030
They now have another mandate. I went to the Minister
of Culture and Citizenship and said: "Look,
we would support you if you were to introduce a bill
that has had a great deal of consultation.
You've got the heritage act ready to go. You just have
to present it. You would get the communities
to support you. You would get New Democrats to support
you." I said: "I suspect the Liberals
would support you. If you have the support of the opposition
parties, you could easily introduce this
bill and pass it. It won't take long. We don't have to
debate it for very long."
She was quite polite and said that she has a lot of things
to do and was quite interested in talking to
me again to see what could come of those discussions.
I'm being polite again.
But I tell you, it's an easy thing. Member from--long
title--Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, you could be
helpful in this regard. You have initiated something
that the heritage community likes. Archaeology
in water is something that is very, very important to
these people. It shouldn't be something that's
just very important to them; it should be important to
all Ontarians, because it's part of our history,
part of the heritage you want to be able to salvage.
You want to be able to protect it, learn from it.
I say to you that as much as this is an important first
step, I am hoping that the Minister of Culture is
behind this or at least is supportive of this. I'm hoping
in the discussions you have with her you can
convince her to move to archaeology on land, natural
heritage, which is as important as heritage in
the water. We should worry about archaeology in rivers.
I don't think this covers rivers; I don't
think it does. But if you think it does, then say it.
If you think it's ambiguous, then include it. But if it
is, it's something that would excite me and would excite
the heritage community.
You see what I'm saying, Toby, member from Norfolk? If
this is good for archaeology in water,
move to the next step. There shouldn't be complications
in doing that. While I concede that this is a
good thing to do, I'm not quite sure why the Minister
of Culture isn't saying to you, member from
Norfolk, "We're going to take this bill over, because
it's a good bill, but it's a little bill in the scheme
of things, and we're going to make it bigger."
I'm hoping you can help me today by saying to me: "Member
for Trinity-Spadina, I've had
discussions with the minister. She's supportive. I can
tell you that we're talking about how to
introduce this new heritage act." If you can do that,
we are moving in the right direction.
I tell you, you guys, women and men there, you can do
a great deal of good for the heritage
community. You can, with very little wreckage to yourselves,
do something good for yourselves
politically. You can introduce a bill that is so harmless,
but you will have satisfied so many heritage
workers out there, who, by the way, are probably your
supporters by and large. You can do
something good. Salvage something from this wreckage
by doing something better than what you're
about to do.
I'm saying to you that you are on the right track. I'm
saying to you, as well, in relation to divers, I
don't think divers should be touching the wreck. They
shouldn't be there.
Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [Children]): How do you find it?
Mr Marchese: I didn't say that, my good friend from Mississauga
South. What I said is that they
shouldn't be in the wreck. If they are able to find it,
God bless, we say, "This is great." But they've
got to report it. I don't think it's a problem for them
to be licensed. I don't like the idea that divers--
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): More red tape.
Mr Marchese: Yeah, right. My friend from Niagara
Centre says, "More red tape." Sure. But this
is something that you need to protect. You can't have
divers deciding on their own: "This is a
wonderful piece of work here. This is a nice wreck, and
I just want to get a piece of the action. I
want to be able to do what I want." I don't think that's
right. I'm sure my friend from Mississauga
South doesn't think it's right either. Is that correct?
Hon Mrs Marland: What was the last thing you said?
Mr Marchese: I'm sure you think it's all right
for them to explore, but I think you would find it
wrong for them to simply, after having explored and found
it--that you would not find it right for
them to actually go on to the wreck and either take things
from the wreck or damage it.
Hon Mrs Marland: I think we're talking about preservation of our heritage.
Mr Marchese: Well, that's what I was talking about.
My friend from Mississauga South said, "I
think we're talking about preservation of our heritage."
That's why your colleague Toby has
introduced this bill, and I'm happy to say I support
it.
Member from Norfolk, you've done a good thing here. The
heritage community believes you have
done a good thing, and they're hoping, given that you've
had the courage to introduce it here today,
that you go to the next step. Protecting archaeology
in water is one thing, protecting archaeology on
land is equally important, and if you can make that move,
you can make the next one. I urge you to
do that. I'm looking forward to your doing that publicly,
I hope, so we can see those efforts.
Otherwise, I'll be deceived by this act.
I congratulate the Conservative members for supporting
this, because I anticipate they will, and I
hope the Minister of Citizenship will be engaged and
will introduce an Ontario Heritage Act that I
helped bring forward in 1990-91. With that, I leave my
good friend from Niagara Centre to add his
comments to this debate.
Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek): I too wish to add
my support to this bill and wish to
congratulate the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for
bringing this up.
This is very important in my riding. We have in our riding
the city of Hamilton, which has taken
ownership of two warships that went down in 1812. I'd
like to read a passage from a note that was
sent out in 1812:
"Wind during the night from the westward and after midnight
squally. Kept all hands at quarters and
beat to windward in hopes to gain the wind of the enemy.
At 2 am missed two of our schooners. At
daylight discovered the missing schooners to be the Hamilton
and Scourge. Soon after spoke to
Governor Tompkins who informed me that the Hamilton and
Scourge both overset and sunk in a
heavy squall about two o'clock, and, distressing to relate,
every soul perished except 19."
That passage really says an awful lot about what we're
talking about here. This isn't simply the
preservation of a heritage site, this is the preservation
of the last resting place for sailors who have
travelled the lakes in Ontario.
These two schooners are sitting in 300 feet of water near
Port Dalhousie and they are in almost
freezing water. Many marine archaeologists have stated
that these two schooners are the most
pristine and well-preserved specimens anywhere in the
world. They are intact. Many divers have
gone down and surveyed them. They were found actually
in 1973 by Daniel A. Nelson. He was a
St Catharines dentist who was an amateur archaeologist.
He discovered these finds back in 1973,
and ever since there has been a great deal of controversy
because the Hamilton city council would
like to see them preserved. Actually, they work towards
bringing them up from their watery grave
and building a museum, but the costs are so exorbitant.
Now the quest becomes to preserve them
in their final resting place.
The laws that currently govern the sanctuary of the Great
Lakes shipwrecks like the Hamilton, the
Scourge, the Edmund Fitzgerald, the Atlantic and many
others are vague, and they are open to legal
challenge. Given the current laws, it's probably illegal
to land a submarine on the deck of any of the
aforementioned wrecks, but we're not sure.
There has been an awful lot of activity around these wrecks.
The province has stated they don't
want anyone near these wrecks because the concern was
pilferage. Things are already missing from
these wrecks. There are photographs showing very clearly
that there are swords and
cannonballs--these wrecks are intact, but the skeletal
remains are now missing. They were found
back in the 1970s, and in 1983 they were featured in
a National Geographic magazine, but more
recently they're missing. That leads one to believe that
there are unscrupulous individuals who dove
and removed the finds. It's scary that this continues.
I urge that all members in the House support this bill.
It's important that we put very stiff penalties in
place so these wrecks are protected for our future generations.
1040
Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I too
would like to wish the honourable member
for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant all the best as he initiates
this. My riding has 60 miles of the north
short of Lake Erie in it, and we have a long marine heritage
also. Many of the ports--Port Stanley,
Port Burwell and Port Bruce--have had ship-building industries
and fishing industries, and much
tragedy has been seen within those municipalities over
the years as a result of the industry on the
Great Lakes.
There are some faults in this legislation that need to
be addressed. First and foremost, I just want to
talk a bit about your government's record on heritage.
It's a record that is not positive for heritage in
the long run. We've seen over $2 million in cuts directed
towards heritage over the years. As
recently as last week, many heritage organizations in
this province faced another 1% cut. That is
going to be harmful to heritage in the long run.
I want to echo the comments of the member for Trinity-Spadina.
I compliment you for initiating a
separate piece of legislation, but I think the better
approach would be to make this part of the
Ontario Heritage Act. The Ontario Heritage Act has not
been updated since 1974. It's very
inadequate in many ways, in the tools it provides to
municipalities and others to protect heritage
sites. The Liberal government in 1989 initiated a consultation
process to revise and update the
Ontario Heritage Act. This process was continued through
1995 by the NDP government, with a
draft release of the new Ontario Heritage Act. But that's
where it stopped. It didn't go any further. I
implore the members on the opposite side to take a look
at the Ontario Heritage Act.
I think it's wonderful that we have this marine heritage
act in front of us today, but we need to look
at heritage as a whole in this province and look at how
we are preserving our heritage, whether it
be the archaeological sites, the natural sites, the sites
that are below the water or the sites that are
on land. I would much prefer to see a total review of
the whole Ontario Heritage Act. I know the
heritage organizations in this province would prefer
that, instead of seeing an approach where we
only look at specific aspects of our heritage. It's important,
as we look to preserving our heritage
for future generations, that we look at the whole and
not just bits and pieces.
I see some problems that I'd like to pass on to the honourable
member, that I would really
appreciate some further investigation of. With all the
cuts that have taken place in the area of
heritage--I look at the work being done by the citizenship
and culture staff, out of their Centre
Street office in London. Those individuals are very overworked.
We will have an act in place, but
are the resources going to be available to ensure the
enforcement of this legislation? My concern
right now is that those resources aren't available, to
ensure that there's going to be adequate
enforcement of the site.
The other aspect of this legislation that you need to
think very seriously about is the fact that if I was
a diver off Port Talbot and I discovered a wreck, I'm
obligated under this legislation to notify the
minister. I think that's good; we need to have these
archaeological sites registered. The problem I
see is that the next aspect of this legislation is that
it's incumbent on the minister to publish a list of
these archaeological sites. My biggest concern on publishing
this list is that it's going to lead to
piracy. There are going to be individuals out there who
aren't going to respect this act. On a
six-month basis, they're going to contact the minister's
office and say, "I'm curious to see all the
latest shipwrecks that have been found," and they're
going to use the information that a true diver or
archaeologist has done to register that site to go out
early in the morning or late at night with lights
and they're going to pilfer and pirate those wrecks.
Those artifacts are going to be lost.
In conclusion, I want to commend the member for his efforts.
But I think there are some areas that
we need to look at, and I would urge you to look at encompassing
this in the Ontario Heritage Act.
Mr Kormos: Before I start, I'd please ask for unanimous
consent to wear this white ribbon. This is
the beginning of the White Ribbon Campaign, the annual
weekly event in which internationally men,
by wearing the white ribbon and joining together, condemn
violence by men against women and
promote--
The Acting Speaker: Mr Kormos has asked unanimous
consent to wear the white ribbon.
Agreed? Agreed.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: I didn't hear a no. Shall we
try it again? Is there unanimous consent for
members to wear a white ribbon? I heard a no.
Mr Kormos: I'm embarrassed. I can't believe that somebody would have--
The Acting Speaker: Just remove the ribbon, please,
all members. Will members remove the
ribbon.
Mr Kormos: I wanted to speak to this bill and I
intend to vote for it. I think the bill should go to
committee. I think the bill is a valid one.
But I've got to tell you, for the first time in I suppose
almost a lifetime I'm virtually speechless. As I
was compelled to, and I appreciate, I came here, along
with some other colleagues this morning
after attending the kickoff campaign, a pancake breakfast,
as part of the tradition that developed
around the White Ribbon Campaign. Of course, we've commenced
the process of wearing white
ribbons.
This is an event that now has acquired some tradition.
It's an expression by men of their repugnance
for and their condemnation of, and it's a statement of
men's intention to be intolerant of, violence
towards women, violence in our homes, violence in our
communities, violence in this province, in
this country, internationally, violence that assumes
forms that are not worthy even of dignifying by
referring to it. I am shocked and saddened beyond belief
that an expression as modest--believe me,
there's far more that we should be doing besides wearing
a damned white ribbon.
When permission is sought from this chamber to wear that
white ribbon as an expression of regret
about and condemnation of violence towards women, when
that consent is sought and not given,
when there's even one member of this chamber who would--
Hon Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker:
I think we're in private members' business
and we're speaking to a resolution under the name of
Toby Barrett, An Act to preserve Ontario's
marine heritage and promote tourism by protecting heritage
wrecks and artifacts. I would ask that
you enforce the standing orders with the speaker.
1050
The Acting Speaker: That is a point of order. The member
will direct his comments to the bill
before the House.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Speaker.
I am disgusted by this chamber this morning. I find this
chamber repugnant. I find it hard to have
any respect for anything that this institution should
be standing for.
Only a week ago this government stood up, and only by
virtue of compulsion apologized to the
women who were victimized, abused, raped--
The Acting Speaker: Speak to the bill, please.
Mr Kormos: --assaulted on a daily basis over the
course of decades while they were wards of the
state, and today this chamber says no--
The Acting Speaker: The member will know he should speak to the bill.
Mr Kormos: Thank you, Speaker.
This chamber now says no to a campaign against violence towards women. You disgust me.
Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr
Speaker: Can I get a clarification, please, on
the ruling that you made? Does that preclude us requesting
a second time the ability to wear a
ribbon?
The Acting Speaker: Are you asking for unanimous consent?
Mr Levac: I would ask for unanimous consent for
the ability for us to wear the white ribbon
today.
The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? We have consent.
Further debate?
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): First
of all I would like to make it perfectly
clear that I do not have any problem with anyone wearing
a white ribbon this morning.
I rise today in support of this bill, sponsored by my
friend from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, the
Ontario Marine Heritage Act. I certainly appreciate having
the opportunity to speak to this bill this
morning, because my riding of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
borders on the Canadian-American
border, separated by the great water bodies of Lake St
Clair, the St Clair River and Lake Huron.
I would like to quote a couple passages from Shipwrecks of Lake Huron, by Jack Parker.
"There are two Lake Huron wrecks that have been unofficially
identified as the Griffon, but formal
recognition has yet to be accorded to either of them.
One is the ancient wreck found in the 1800s in
the then gin-clear waters of Mississagi Straits"--Mr
Speaker, I would imagine you would
appreciate that word and that name and that location--"at
the western end of Manitoulin Island in
northern Lake Huron."
The other passage--and I give credit to my colleague from
Bruce-Grey, because I'm sure if I didn't
mention his name or his riding this morning, I would
be in his books forever thereafter.
"The other wreck lies approximately 150 miles east, where
ancient timbers were found in a shallow
cove on Russell Island, in Georgian Bay, just off Tobermory.
This wreck was found by the late
Orrie Vail, a commercial fisherman from Tobermory, who
remembered his father telling of such an
old wreck on one of the islands near his fishing grounds.
Not too much of this ship was left by the
time Vail located it...."
That's what I want to seek. I would like to address three
important matters that I believe are
relative to this issue this morning.
The first deals with the importance of protecting these
resources for their historical value.
Thousands of shipwrecks litter the floor of the five
Great Lakes, many of them for hundreds of
years, while still others lie yet undiscovered. What
is unique about these wrecks is their excellent
state of preservation which, experts say, is due to the
coldness of the Great Lakes waters and the
relative absence of marine life.
With the increasing popularity of scuba diving and the
use of advanced technologies like side scan
sonar, combined with the relative shallowness of the
wrecks, the sad fact is that many of our
historical treasures are being systematically raped and
pillaged. It is time we in Ontario followed the
lead of other jurisdictions that have made wreck conservation
a priority. In this regard, the state of
Michigan in 1980 created nine underwater preserves, totalling
nearly 1,900 square miles of Great
Lakes bottomland. In Michigan, it is a felony to remove
or disturb artifacts in the Great Lakes.
Those caught stripping the wrecks or taking souvenirs
are subject to having their boat, car and
equipment confiscated, as well as having stiff fines
or even prison terms imposed. The result is one
of the finest sport diving locations in the Great Lakes.
I would submit that it is exactly what the
Ontario Marine Heritage Act seeks to duplicate.
Second, it is the importance of wreck conservation to
the tourism industry, particularly in the small
communities that dot the Great Lakes on the Canadian
side. Lodging, campgrounds, restaurants,
dive shops, charter operators and marinas can all benefit
from the increased popularity of sport
diving.
Finally, I'd like to address the sanctity of these wrecks
as grave sites. As extreme an analogy as this
might seem, imagine if you will the reaction of our citizens
if vandals were allowed free access to a
cemetery anywhere across this province to desecrate graves
that marked the final resting place of
loved ones. We would be outraged. I would challenge anyone
to explain to me why shipwrecks
should be considered any differently. Wrecks are the
only monuments that mark the final resting
place of thousands of seamen who moved goods and services
and protected the people of Ontario
over the last number of centuries.
In closing, it is important to our history, to our culture,
to what we can learn in terms of preventing
future tragedies, to the economies of small communities,
tourism protection and for just the plain
enjoyment of all citizens across our province.
I would be hard pressed to think of any downside in supporting
this bill and I would encourage
everyone in this House to give this matter your consideration.
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): I am pleased
to rise today to speak in favour of Bill
13, the Marine Heritage Act. I would like to begin by
congratulating the member for
Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for bringing forward this bill
to ensure that Ontarians may cherish their
marine heritage resources for generations to come.
This bill is designed to protect the wrecks in our lakes--and
our rivers, as one of our colleagues
questioned earlier--from irresponsible explorations and
pillaging. Preservation of Ontario's heritage,
whether it's marine or on land, is important to all Ontarians
and hopefully to this Legislature.
We have a naval and marine tradition we can be proud of.
I think too often we limit our conception
of marine heritage to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
We forget about the brave sailors who
traversed the Great Lakes, who fought against gales with
waves as high as this entire legislative
chamber to bring goods back and forth to various communities
all across North America. In fact, it
could be argued that our province owes its existence
to the brave sailors who fought battles on
these very lakes.
This bill will ensure that underwater monuments to their
sacrifices are preserved. It's one way we
can, as my colleague mentioned just a moment ago, demonstrate
our respect for the Great Lakes
mariners and the contributions they made to the growth
of this province.
There was a time when you could look out over the lakes
and see hundreds of ships passing. It's
still a very important industry to many towns, for instance,
the town of Goderich, which is in the
riding where I grew up. It's now very ably represented
by my colleague the Minister of Citizenship,
Culture and Recreation.
Goderich is a port actually prospering more as the years
pass. Tonnes of grain and salt pass
through this town's port daily and it has never forgotten
its debt to the sailors of years past. There
are two memorials there. The Unknown Sailor's Grave serves
as a reminder of the sacrifices of
generations of sailors. There is also a plaque that was
erected by the Archives of Ontario, looking
out over the harbour to remember the great storm of 1913.
This was a three-day storm in which
244 lives were lost in various freighters and ships that
went aground or sank.
1100
Heritage is very important to this ministry and to this
government. Last week, the Minister of
Finance introduced legislation that will extend the tax
rebate on building supplies purchased for
renovations of heritage buildings. We know that we all
benefit from the restoration and preservation
of various buildings across the province. I'm delighted
to see our interest turn today to marine
vessels that are not visible to the eye for those of
us on land.
This prohibits anyone who does not have a licence--and
this is an important thing to note. Licences
may be obtained through the ministry for entering, for
removing artifacts. These licences are granted
by the minister under the Ontario Heritage Act, and the
fines that are to be imposed, should this
legislation be passed, are in line with those that are
granted under the Ontario Heritage Act.
I would like to close by saying that I think this is very
important legislation. It has my wholehearted
support. I would urge all members to join with me in
supporting this legislation.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford):
I'm certainly pleased to join in the debate
with respect to a bill that would create a new act, the
Ontario Marine Heritage Act, 1999.
I would just like to offer a historical context to this
debate, because certainly the member has
indicated what he's trying to accomplish here in terms
of the historical past.
I want to read a passage here. It's called Gateway to
Oblivion: The Great Lakes Bermuda Triangle,
by Hugh F. Cochrane. I'll just read a passage from that.
"It is a strange place where ships, planes and people
vanish into thin air, where weird fogs and
globes of light abound, where ominous waters shroud sinister
events. It is a place where eerie,
negative emissions have gripped psychics and bizarre
UFO events astound researchers. It is an
enigma with a 200-year history of disasters that have
drained insurance companies of millions of
dollars in claims and set records for mysterious events
that pale the famed Bermuda Triangle. Ship
losses alone number in the thousands, yet authorities
refuse to discuss the matter openly.
"Where is this realm of suspended reality? It is not in
a remote corner of the earth. It is located right
here in the middle of the North American heartland, the
region known as the Great Lakes."
Certainly, we have a member here who is looking to do
something about this. I think, in the
historical context, it's about time.
I'd also like to read another passage, from Shipwrecks
of the Lakes by Dana Thomas Bowen. It
says:
"Voyages upon the Great Lakes are unsurpassed anywhere.
The ports of call are usually large
cities, most of them having their beginnings from the
lake trade. The great open stretches of fresh
water are exhilarating, invigorating and, at the same
time, restful. Travel the Great Lakes and enjoy
for yourself the interesting experiences that await you.
"For any writer to attempt to put into a single book details
of all the shipwrecks of the Great Lakes
is sheer folly. Even if it might be possible to obtain
or compile just a listing of the names of the
wrecked ships with dates, locations and causes, it is
doubtful that it could be condensed into a
single, usable book."
I think what we're trying to deal with here is to put
this into a historical context. Something needs to
be done, and I think the member has accomplished this.
Mr Barrett: I wish to thank all the members who
have spoken this morning, representing the
interests of their various lakes, certainly Lake Erie,
Lake Ontario, Lake Huron and Lake Superior.
My neighbours to the west on Lake Erie, both the member
for Essex and the member for
Elgin-Middlesex-London, covered the North Shore very
well.
To the member for Essex, I just wish to clarify that the
licensing system already is in place. The
reality is that many of the wrecks the member for Essex
speaks of are already dive sites. Many
have been stripped clean, unfortunately, and they would
be exempted from these regulations. That's
why we are giving the minister that ability. The licence
is for marine archaeology, not merely to dive
or explore.
Member for Trinity-Spadina, thank you for your comments,
and yes indeed we did draw on the
previous consultation that was done by the ministry in
drafting this legislation. I also point out that
the legislation does cover rivers in Ontario, submerged
vessels or partially submerged vessels if they
are on crown land and if they are abandoned.
The member for Guelph-Wellington mentioned the big storm
of 1913. That storm was on
November 11. We know the expression "the gales of November,"
a quote from a song by Gordon
Lightfoot. So many of these disastrous storms occurred
in November, certainly the Edmund
Fitzgerald. There was a terrible Armistice Day storm
in 1940, and on November 30, 1905, 10
ships went down.
In memory of these lives lost, I ask you to support this
bill