Ontario Citizens Should Have ‘Right Of Passage’ To Shorelines Of Our Great Lakes – Kim Craitor

Foreword by Doug Draper

Niagara Falls MPP Kim Craitor is once again hoping to get the Ontario Liberal government he is apart of to pass a bill he has tabled that would assure both residents of and visitors to the province access to the shorelines of our Great Lakes.

A fenced-off stretch of Lake Erie beach in the Fort Erie, Ontario area.

The bill – titled the ‘Great Lakes Shoreline Right of Passage Act’ or Bill 32 for short – received second reading earlier this May and is the second or third of its kind that Craitor has tabled over the past four or five years. The others died on the floor of the legislature much to the disappointment of citizen groups like the Ontario Shorewalk Association with members in Fort Erie and other lakeshore communities.

Craitor’s bill is a response to efforts some shoreline residents have made over the years to, for example, fence off sections of beach right down to the waterline so members of the public cannot walk them. In a number of other jurisdictions across the border in the United States and elsewhere in the world, such practices are not allowed.

For the record, Niagara At Large is posting below the hansard from the Ontario legislature earlier this May, featuring Craitor’s arguments for passage of the bill.

GREAT LAKES SHORELINE
RIGHT OF PASSAGE ACT, 2011 /
LOI DE 2011 SUR LE DROIT
DE PASSAGE SUR LE LITTORAL
DES GRANDS LACS

Mr. Craitor moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 32, An Act to create a right of passage along the shoreline of the Great Lakes / Projet de loi 32, Loi créant un droit de passage le long du littoral des Grands Lacs.

Niagara Falls MPP Kim Craitor

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Pursuant to standing order 98, the honourable member has 12 minutes for his presentation.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I’m extremely proud to have the opportunity to bring forward Bill 32, right of passage, and to have the right to be able to speak on it today.
Summer is coming. It will get warmer and warmer, and when it gets hot, thousands of Ontario families will head down to the absolutely marvellous sand beaches along the shores of our Great Lakes, beaches that are really wonderful most of the time.

From Cape Cod to the Cape of Good Hope, from the Gulf Shores to Erie’s southern shores, from South Beach to Daytona Beach, from Myrtle Beach to Malibu, all throughout the world people flock to their great beaches. It matters not if the land fronts on these beaches are there with five-star hotels or homes of the rich and famous; the public has a right of passage to access and enjoy their natural wonder.
Likewise, Ontario is blessed. It has great stretches of fabulous sand beaches, especially along our Great Lakes, whether it be from Crystal Beach to Wasaga Beach, from the shores of Ipperwash to the dunes of Sand Banks, or from Port Dover to Port Stanley. But the right of passage on Ontario beaches is truly ill-defined, or perhaps I’d better say that it’s not even defined.
So the people of Tiny township have a big problem. So do the people of Fort Erie. Likewise, so do the citizens of Cobourg. More and more are finding out that nature’s wonderful legacy is being fenced off by adjacent landowners.
The result is that the children of Ontario’s summer—our children—are being denied a right of passage, both literally and figuratively. That’s why I urge this Parliament to take a close look at Bill 32 and help properly define the right of passage along the Ontario Great Lakes so that people and children can enjoy walking and swimming along our great beaches.
I want to mention some people who have taken the time to come here to Queen’s Park to support this bill. Joining me today are some super folks from right across Ontario. I want to first introduce Betty Van Osch, who is the president of Shorewalk. Thank you, Betty, for coming out. I want to mention Councillor Stephen Passero—I don’t think he was able to get here—who is past president of Shorewalk and councillor for the town of Fort Erie. Garry Skerrett, the founder of Shorewalk, is here from Fort Erie. Garry, it’s a pleasure to have you here. Serena Smith from Fort Erie and Paul Kassay from Crystal Beach—I had the pleasure of attending your birthday; I won’t say for what year. It was a great birthday party. Amy King from Ridgeway and Bob Cairns, president of the Cobourg Beach Society: Thank you for coming out.
One name I want to mention is a former member of this House, who sadly passed away just a couple weeks ago; I was at his funeral. That was MPP Ray Haggerty, who sat on Shorewalk’s advisory board. In fact, Ray Haggerty made the trip up here when we introduced this bill. He was one of those who passionately believed in the right of passage.
I was also happy to hear from some other people. Matthew Pearson of Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation wasn’t able to make it but sent best wishes; and Don, Kathy and Nicole, who I think may be here from Tiny township. It’s nice to have you come up as well. Thank you.
The reason all these fine people are here is because each of their communities—some; certainly not all—is asserting a right that does not exist and is not supported in British common law. The people who are exerting this right, which they say they have, are doing it in the crudest way you can imagine. They are barricading Ontario’s public beaches with chain link fences that stretch out into navigable international waters and placing inappropriate “No Trespassing” signs in front of those fences. In essence, they’re simply putting fences right into Lake Ontario and saying, “We own it. We own the land all the way into the lake. It belongs to us, and you cannot walk along the shores of the Great Lakes.”
Because of the ambiguity and the absence of a defining law, nothing is being done by any authority to exert the public’s right of passage to walk along our wonderful beachfronts.
What does this proposed legislation do? I’m going to tell you what it doesn’t do, first of all. What it doesn’t do is expropriate or take away any legal right property owners may have; it does not permit the passage of anybody across private lands to access the shoreline beach; and it does not allow for the improper use of shoreline beaches. In fact, this legislation gives adjacent landowners and the beach itself protection from the use of motorized vehicles. It also allows the government to prescribe regulations to govern conduct on the beach. For example, it could be possible to regulate access to daylight hours, a right not currently in place.
I want to say that I’m truly indebted to the members of Fort Erie Shorewalk, Save the Beaches of Tiny township and the Cobourg Beach Society.
I want to mention one of my colleagues, the member from Welland, Peter Kormos—I’m not supposed to mention his name, but I just did. The member from Welland, way back when—I have the photograph of him; his hair was a lot darker back then—was involved in a demonstration to save our beaches. So this has been going on for a while.
1410
As Matthew Pearson from the Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation says, “Securing the right of access along our Great Lakes beaches will become more and more important as temperatures tend to rise and demand for beach use increases. The exclusion of motorized vehicles on beaches is extremely important for protecting beach habitat and reducing the spread of invasive plants along our coastal lines.”
Let me tell you why we’re in this situation. As the pressures of the population grow and collide with the interests of private ownership, the issues of public access to the beaches of the Great Lakes in Ontario has become an increasingly controversial issue.
In fact, to put it in its simplest terms, can you imagine that a homeowner would put up a fence and the fence would go all the way out to the front of his yard and on to the sidewalk, and he would say, “You cannot walk along the sidewalks in front of my house because, in my opinion, I have a right to put a fence all the way there and it belongs to me”?
What we have are individuals who’ve gone the reverse way, put up fences in the back of their yards and put them right into the lake and have now blocked off access for the public to be able to access it.
I wanted to take a moment to read an article that I think clearly defines what we’re trying to accomplish in this House today. It says:
“Jutting out from a fortified steel retaining wall at the end of Pleasant Beach Road at the border of Fort Erie and Port Colborne, a high fence made of steel beams and chain link continues on right to the water’s edge.
“A bluntly worded sign posted by the property owner on the fence warns the beach is private, and trespassing beyond that point is prohibited.
“Braving a bone-chilling wind on Monday … MPP Kim Craitor and … resident Garry Skerrett stood next to the fence, dwarfed by the barrier but determined to see the day when it—and hundreds of other such barriers barring public access to beaches along the Great Lakes—are taken down.
“Craitor, whose riding includes Fort Erie, Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake, introduced a private member’s bill in the Ontario Legislature” to give people the right to walk along the Great Lakes shoreline.
“Skerrett, president of the Ontario Shorewalk Association, which has been fighting for public access to the beaches for about two years, said the time has come for the fences to come down. He was part of two busloads of people” at that time, “including Niagara high school students, who accompanied Craitor to Queen’s Park to support his bill….
“Craitor said when Skerrett’s group first approached him asking for help in ridding the Great Lakes of the fences put up by property owners, he was surprised to hear of the barriers that routinely bar the public from visiting places such as the Point Abino lighthouse, a national historic site.” Can you imagine a fence being put up that would not allow people to walk along the Great Lakes shoreline to a national heritage site?
In absence of specific statutory rules or regulations, the bill would help define, through this legislation, that people have the right to walk the shorelines of Ontario. I know that a number of my colleagues on both sides of the House will be speaking to the bill and I’m looking forward to their input about the bill. I know that one of my colleagues will be speaking on it. I’ll be pleased to do a wrap-up in the time that I have as well to give some more input as to why this bill is so significant to the rights of the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss Bill 32 in regard to this. First of all, I completely agree with the member in regard to the fencing and that aspect and the impacts that go on about this legislation, but I spoke to a number of property owners in Oshawa who are on Lake Ontario and they had some specific concerns with it. The regulation component of the legislation that comes forward is somewhat concerning. The member mentioned the fact that there potentially could be closing hours that would be available for operation etc. A lot of individuals, particularly once upon a time—not so much in our community, because the smelt population has decreased substantially, but in my younger days, as the member from Beaches–East York would know, smelt fishing was very popular along the shores of Lake Ontario, where the smelt population is substantially decreased now. Yet in other areas throughout a number of the Great Lakes, it’s still very popular. So looking at regulations, regulating hours; what’s the impact going to be on those individuals who are actively out smelt fishing at that particular time?
Some of the other concerns are very specifically in regards to the definition of “high-water mark.” In the legislation, in the explanatory note, it specifically states, “The bill reserves a right of passage along the shoreline of the Great Lakes between the shoreline and high-water mark.” Then it goes on to give a definition of the “high-water mark.” In the act, it means “the mark on the shore where the presence and action of the water is so continuous as to leave a distinct mark either by erosion, destruction of terrestrial vegetation or other easily recognized characteristic.”
Part of the problem with that is that a lot of the conservation authorities are interpreting the high-water mark in different ways. There are three high-water marks. There’s the spring high-water mark, which usually takes place in the Great Lakes at about June; then there’s the annual high-water mark; and then there’s the one that causes the problems that give everyone concern: the 100-year water mark.
For those who don’t understand, once every 100 years, a hurricane passes through Ontario and substantially impacts the high-water marks in Ontario. A lot of the conservation authorities are utilizing the 100-year high-water mark on these properties now and disallowing individuals the ability to use those properties.
The ones whom I spoke with along Lake Ontario there—Mr. Crozier etc.—their concern was, “What’s this going to mean now? The conservation authority is already disallowing us to use that 100-year high-water mark property in any way, shape or form.” The concern comes forward as, “What’s going to take place in regards to that aspect?” When you look at the definition of the fact, that it would take into regulation how it’s going to be affected, I think it needs to be clearly defined as to how it’s going to unfold.
Some of the other areas—the specifics regarding the other individuals I spoke with: “Does this mean that somebody can come along, use the high-water mark as their area, and then sit down because they’ve walked into an area where they can have a beach bonfire? What’s going to be the impact there, and how is that going to be regulated and monitored etc. so that those individuals who use that for those purposes”—what is going to take place in Wasaga Beach, for example, as specifically mentioned to me in that particular area? Is somebody going to come along and now say that they can use that?
One of the other areas that I’m sure the member hasn’t taken into consideration—because there have been discussions about this. I have to mention that access issues in the province of Ontario are very prevalent everywhere. It’s not just along the Great Lakes; it’s in other areas as well. Many may not know that 66 feet of shoreline in the inner lakes is predominantly owned by the municipalities until sold off. Those municipalities use that as revenue generation for the retail sale, plus the taxation, to allow them to have that. What would be the impacts on those in future expectations on those inland lakes by municipalities, should this go through?
We all set a precedent. I realize it’s somewhat out there, but realistically, we know how politics works. “What happened there? Why can’t we take it somewhere else?”
One of the other things: Places like Frenchman’s Bay were brought forward as well. I’m not sure if individuals are familiar with how Frenchman’s Bay came to be. The individual bought the land, then he opened up the shoreline to allow it to be flooded, and now we have a huge bay there, where everybody owns the land on the inside.
The same thing has taken place with, I believe, St Marys Cement. What they did there was they used a crown that allowed them access to establish a port inside the shoreline. Now we’ve got a port on St Marys Cement that’s effectively going to be subject to legislation, where it’s owned by the crown, yet they have ports and ships going in and out in this area on a regular basis. It’s not private, but there are going to be impacts there. You have to bring some security to these individuals so they gain an understanding of how it’s going to unfold or not unfold.
Another area is the First Nations response. You mentioned, I believe, at least one First Nation community. I’m not sure how they responded to this, in allowing that to take place. I know there’s a number of them down Cornwall way—I think you mentioned the community. I’m not sure if it was Cornwall or the Belleville community. How is that going to impact First Nation communities that are right along the shorelines in a number of these areas in Ontario?
1420
As we move forward with these things, we need to work out the details to make sure that we get it right, so that it goes forward with the intent. I completely agree: Anybody who’s fencing right down to the lake should not be allowed to do it in any way, shape or form, for numerous reasons. But then again, when I’m thinking about it, and when I thought about the debate, I realized that, for example, Balsam Lake Provincial Park has a drift problem with sand. The currents move along and move the sand along, so they use aspects like that to stop the drift of sand from washing all the way along the shore. They use those effectively to ensure that the sand remains along those beaches that are there by putting those up. So if you want to disallow fencing, make sure it’s not implementing or impacting those areas that are trying to put those up to protect the shoreline in the first place. Balsam Lake Provincial Park, although it’s not on the Great Lakes, was the one that came to mind because I directly dealt with it and went up to and visibly saw the issue taking place there.
I didn’t have time, upon finding out that I was to debate on this today, to find out whether it was going to impact any of the provincial parks and whether they specifically do it, whether it’s Darlington or a large number of other ones along there.
Some of the other aspects that I hope the member will be able to address are places along Turkey Point and that. These individuals own large sections of land right down to the marsh there. How is that going to impact the Turkey Point club or the—there are a number of clubs, some of the other ones that the member from Haldimand–Norfolk has mentioned to me in the past as well. How are those private clubs going to be impacted for the utilization of that? And is it allowing public access in those particular areas where there are duck hunting clubs along those properties in that area?
You want to make sure that if access is being granted, they realize that these particular locations—and the same goes for Darlington Provincial Park. They open duck hunting in the fall on specific days, with specific regulations, only in the morning. Are individuals going to be allowed access to those specific areas while the duck hunt is taking place? These are all the small things that need to be taken into consideration when you bring legislation forward.
You mentioned bringing a couple of busloads of students down. Quite frankly, when I was in high school, that was a great place to be. We went out to many places where there weren’t any houses around and we enjoyed the spring smelt fishing and all the things that went along with it. Now, if it’s opened up right along with subdivisions abutting right up against that, what’s the impact going to be? And are we not creating more problems for those individuals, as opposed to helping them out?
These are just some of the key aspects that I wanted to be sure that I got on the record, because as we move forward with legislation we want to make sure we address all the problems before they become problems because we didn’t realize that, we didn’t know that, and is that going to be effective?
We understand walking along the shoreline, but does that mean you’re allowed to on a continuous path? Or does it mean you’re allowed to walk to a specific site and establish a campsite, bring things along with you etc.? Or does it mean you’re just allowed a hiking path? The right of passage is mentioned.
Those are some of the key things that I wanted to bring up at this time. Hopefully, the member will be able to address some of those, or the other individuals speaking on behalf of this legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Prue: At the outset, I want to assure the member that I will be supporting this bill. I think it’s absolutely essential that it goes forward to second reading and much public debate and input.
I support this bill because I remember several years ago watching on the television almost every night the antics of Tiny township, watching people putting up fences and watching people tear them town, watching neighbours going at each other’s throats, watching all kinds of community angst, having neighbour against neighbour, having people upset. It seems to me that we have to resolve this issue. If we need to resolve the issue, we need to resolve it in a way that will affect and support the majority of Ontarians. By the majority, I mean those who will be able to make and utilize our magnificent waterfronts along the Great Lakes.
If I had anything that I was worried about, it’s perhaps that we should be looking at other lakes as well, because not all of the properties or the built-up areas are along the Great Lakes. I also note that Lake St. Clair is not one of the Great Lakes but has considerable properties along it and many beaches, and I’m sure that many Ontarians would make use of that as well as some of the larger lakes in Ontario: Lake Simcoe, Lake Nipissing, Lake Nipigon and others. Perhaps when this comes to committee, we can talk about expanding it to other locations.
I too have some difficulty about the whole concept of the high-water mark, because I note that on the Great Lakes, from year to year, you will see television reports and others about the lake levels being up or down. In some years, you will see lake levels being down so far that the docks where people normally pull their boats up are on dry land. In other years, you will see the lakes up at so high a level that the docks which people normally pull their boats up to are submerged. Those lake levels will change from year to year, depending on the amount of snowfall, depending on the amount of drought and how much water is released through the system, in some cases.
We need to have a definition, as my friend from Oshawa said earlier, that pinpoints where that high-water mark is. I would suggest that the high-water mark should be, at a minimum, the highest point at which it existed in the previous 10 years, if not where storms or hurricanes of the century have driven it further up. Property owners need to know, should this law be passed, exactly where that line is going to be, because it makes very little sense to me to see a couple of years of drought in a row and have it go further and further out and fences go further and further out and then you have a wet season and then the water is beyond the fence and the property owner has to take the fence down. I want to see it in such a way that the fence is never there in the first place. What is essential to happen is, that mark has to be far enough back that it is unlikely that the fence will ever go out into the water. I’d like to hear deputations on this, but I’d also like the mover of the bill and other members of this House to have an opportunity to further define the high-water mark.
I want to commend the member from Niagara Falls for bringing this forward and reintroducing it again. As I’ve said so often on private members’ bills, it is a shame that members like the member from Niagara Falls have to introduce and reintroduce a bill that is probably, again here today, going to pass with the consent of all sides of the House. It did last time, did it not? I think it did. But if it didn’t, it should have. And it will likely happen again this time: that it’s introduced with all the best intentions, with everyone speaking in favour of it, with everyone understanding what the bill contains, with everyone wanting it to have public input, go to second reading and one day become law.
We here in this House think—or most of us think—that the private members’ bills are sometimes some of the best pieces of legislation that come here. Unfortunately, the majority of these best pieces of legislation never see the light of day. Almost every single private member’s bill that has occurred in this House in the nearly 10 years that I have been here died on the order paper at second reading. If it does go to committee, the committee hears it, but it very seldom gets third reading. Only those scheduled few at the end of the year that are negotiated by the House leaders, that the government permits to come forward and to pass, actually come into law.
With some private members’ bills, the opportunity is made available that the government will seize upon the bill and incorporate it into their own legislation and it will see effect that way. But it seems to me that if this place is to work, then we need to salute the efforts of the member from Niagara Falls. The government members need to be able to convince the government, which has a majority on every single committee in this House, to allow some of these bills to go forward. You cannot sit back there—and I say this to the government members—week after week and see your colleagues come up with good ideas that need to be passed and be content to allow them to die on the order paper. Please say that this is a good idea. Vote for it. And when we leave this place today, should it pass, go back to your caucus and say, “We don’t want this bill”—or the 100 other good bills that have been put forward over the life of this Parliament—“to simply die.” This is an opportunity to do something meaningful for the people of Ontario.
1430
Now, since I’ve been much younger, I’ve enjoyed going along the shorelines to go smelt fishing; I’ve enjoyed going along the shorelines for walks, to watch the bird life, to go swimming, to do a hundred things that Ontarians take for granted. I can tell you, at certain points in my life I have been accosted and stopped by someone who has said, “This is private property.” My answer always was, even in my youth—my father taught me this valuable lesson, that they could own the land but they don’t own the water—to simply step out into the water, where that was at all possible, and challenge the property owner to come out and take me out of the water. That, of course, would be assault, as my father explained to me, because they have no right to own the water in Ontario.
In some places in Canada they do, and that’s why, if you ever go to places like New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, up the Restigouche, if somebody wanted to go salmon fishing, the property owners own not only the property, but the river as well.
We cannot allow that to happen in Ontario. We need to make sure that everyone who wants to make recreational use of our waterways, everyone who wants an opportunity to enjoy nature and to simply get away in Ontario, has that chance. This is not something for the privileged few, for the rich, for those who happen to own a piece of property in a specific location. It is a birthright, I believe, for all Ontarians.
Other countries and other jurisdictions have agreed with this. If you go around the world and you look at some of them, you can see other states—other US states have already enacted this type of legislation. Many of the Caribbean islands, seeing the wealth that they have—it’s not a Great Lake, it’s an ocean, and perhaps the ocean is a little bit easier to define in terms of high-water marks, because it does not fluctuate as much as do our lakes and rivers or the Great Lakes. But they have unlimited access for all of their people so that their people who live there don’t have to look at some big high-rise hotel that’s being built by foreign interests for foreign tourists to stay in, and hear, “You can’t go to that beach.” A country like Barbados says it belongs to everybody; that beach belongs to everybody. I think we have to—I’m saying this for the benefit of the clerks’ table, perhaps, which understands this best of all. It belongs literally to everyone, and we in Ontario have to do no less.
We have to look at other US states along the Great Lakes, which are starting to look seriously at this same phenomenon and are starting to enact types of legislation that will allow for public access of our truly great resort areas.
I note that the two chief areas where this has been a problem, or at least a problem reported to me in the newspapers, are along the shores near Fort Erie and along the shores in Tiny township, in and around the Owen Sound area. That is what’s reported. That is what I see. But I’m sure it’s happening elsewhere. I’m sure it’s happening all over this province, where people are taking it onto themselves, in a belief that this is their property and no one else can share it and they want to live there alone. We have to put an end to that. I support the member’s efforts to do exactly that. We will support this bill at second reading.
I especially want to thank groups like the Ontario Shorewalk Association, the property owners and others who have brought this issue forward and continue to bring this issue forward. This is something that all members should take a very hard look at. I know that there are some members of the Legislature who like to champion property ownership and the rights of private property. There are even some people who suggest that this should be put into the Constitution. I think it was left out of the Constitution for very good reason, and that is because the public good and the public will is every bit as important and sometimes trumps that of property ownership. This is one of the cases where I firmly believe that it does.
The member from Niagara Falls has it right. We in Ontario need to make it right as well. People in Ontario deserve an unfettered right to access the greatest jewels that we have, the greatest opportunity for themselves and their families. Regardless of whether they are wealthy enough to own property, regardless of whether they live in that neighbourhood permanently or are simply visiting it, they have an unfettered and unqualified right to go forward and to enjoy everything that Ontario gives.
I ask all members of the House, on behalf of the member for Niagara Falls, to please vote for his bill. And for government members especially, please go back to your next caucus meeting and impress upon the Premier and the cabinet that this is a bill that should go forward, like so many others. Do not make him come back and do this a third time in the next House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?
Mr. Khalil Ramal: I’m delighted to stand up and enter the debate on Bill 32, An Act to create a right of passage along the shoreline of the Great Lakes, which was introduced by my colleague the member from Niagara Falls. I listened to the debate that took place, and I listened to the member from Niagara Falls state the reasoning behind this bill. It made sense to me. I want to listen to the member from Beaches–East York, and I’m going to support this bill after we finish the debate and it’s time for a vote, because I think it’s important for all of us to enjoy the beauty of this province.
I’m from London, Ontario. We don’t have a lake. We only have rivers and ponds. But we enjoy going to Lake Erie, to Port Stanley or to Lake Huron, to walk along the beach and enjoy the weather and the environment. Sometimes, if we want to swim, we can swim. It’s shocking sometimes when you see a lot of big houses segregated, with fences around the houses, blocking the way to go through. So the member from Niagara Falls is asking reasonable questions to create some rules and regulations in this place to allow people to enjoy the nature of this province, the beauty of this province, because it’s important.
People from across the planet want to visit Ontario. They have a right to walk along the shore and enjoy the beauty of the lakes. They can swim if they want to, and they can enjoy the beauty of these things.
Also, he was reasonable when he said that maybe we will offend people if we use motorcycles or a vehicle to go through. He is not asking for that. He is asking for passage on foot, because we don’t want to offend the owners of the houses along the lake. It’s incredibly important to share the wealth of nature with all of us in the province of Ontario, with all of us around the globe.
My sister-in-law came to visit from Lebanon almost two weeks ago. The first thing she said to me was, “I’m wondering if you can take me to Niagara Falls,” because Niagara Falls is well known in the whole world—the beauty of the Falls and the nature.
We went, despite the cold weather, and we walked along the Falls. She was shocked, because she was expecting to pay a fee to enter and walk and see the beauty of Niagara Falls. She was happy because she didn’t have to pay a fee. She walked, and nobody asked her about anything else. She enjoyed the nature and the beauty of the Falls.
Niagara Falls is a landmark, and so many different lakes are landmarks in the province of Ontario. Many people from around the planet want to come and see our landmarks, whether it’s the lakes, the Falls or the rivers, and they should be accessible for all of us because they’re places where we can attract tourism, where we can attract people to go and enjoy themselves.
Also, we don’t want to create an area only designated for rich people. They can build a palace, they can build a resort, and then also put a fence around the resort and block all the people from walking through or going through.
I listened to the remarks from the member from Oshawa, and I was very impressed with his technicalities, talking about the water in the spring, in the fall or the summertime, and how it shrinks back and forth—also, when we get hurricanes, how the water expands and also shrinks. We’re lucky in the province of Ontario that we don’t have tsunamis. That’s what happened in Japan, where most of the houses shifted almost 10 feet away from the lakeshore.
1440
I think it’s important for all of us to support the member from Niagara Falls and pass this bill, and also to continue to talk about the important things and important elements of our society being open to the public, open to the population of Ontario to enjoy, especially nature, which many people from around the planet want to come and see. It would be unfair for many people who cannot afford to go to a resort or expensive hotel; they can afford to walk along the lake and enjoy the beauty of nature.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak and support Bill 32. Hopefully, all of us in this House support it and it becomes law in the province of Ontario, which opens up the province and especially the lakeshore on the Great Lakes to all of us to walk and enjoy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?
The honourable member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I will use the rest of the time to make just a few more comments and thank my colleagues for their input.
First, I want to say that I’m really pleased that a number of people have taken the time to come out here, because they had the opportunity to listen to some of my colleagues on the other side and hear some of their concerns, which I’ve heard as well from across this province. I think it’s beneficial that you sort of hear both sides.
I also want to make one other comment. As an MPP for eight years, the best time in Parliament is private members’ bills time. I’ve often said that’s the time when there really is no politics. We speak from our hearts; we speak what we believe. I sometimes wish we could do private members’ bills three or four days a week, because there are some fabulous bills that have been put forward by members from all three parties, some really innovative things that would be of benefit to the people of Ontario. One of the special times when I love being in Parliament is during private members’ bills time.
I just want to close, in the time I have left, by sharing a couple of emails I received from different people to show the amount of support for the bill across this province. This came from Waterdown: “We support the right-of-passage act that has been proposed, and we sincerely hope this bill will be taken very seriously and passed quickly. As a family who have walked the beaches and the shores of Lake Huron in particular for 50-plus years, we feel very, very strongly that the shores of all the Great Lakes be kept open to all who wish to walk there. Developers and cottage owners have often had the strong voice in this matter locally, and now it is time for an equal voice on the side of the passage act. If it’s not passed, the opportunity for those who cannot afford a lakefront property to walk along the shores will be gone and one more little bit of freedom taken away.”
As well, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention that today is also about having solutions. That’s what this bill is about. I just wanted to touch a bit on the United States. They have what is known as the public trust doctrine in the United States. In a country where private property rights are so deeply ingrained, it seems counterintuitive that a public right of access to the beaches of oceans and inland waters is recognized in every state. Nevertheless, such a right has been preserved in a legal doctrine, and it’s known as the public trust. In essence, this document holds that the area below the high-water mark and the shoreline is held in trust for the public.
In Michigan, a group known as Save Our Shoreline, composed of mainly wealthy shoreline owners, challenged that doctrine. They said that they challenged the legislation for people to have these rights, not to exclude beach walkers but rather to prevent people from holding parties and lighting camp fires in front of private homes. I want to tell you that it went to the Supreme Court of Michigan, and in the decision, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the members of the public were entitled to walk the shores of the Great Lakes between the ordinary high-water mark, and under the public trust doctrine, the owners do not hold title to their property according to the terms of the deed and subject to the public trust.
Bill 32 in its simplest form just says that people would have the right to walk along the Great Lakes of Ontario and be able to enjoy themselves. It does have a number of exclusions, and that was mentioned: You can’t drive vehicles, you can’t have campfires, you can’t stop and put out blankets,
You can’t do any of those things. There are a lot of very positive things to protect the rights of homeowners. But in essence, it gives you that opportunity to enjoy our Great Lakes.
I want to conclude with just thanking my colleagues from Beaches and from Fanshawe as well for their comments.
There are some very positive things that were said, and that is, as the bill goes forward, in essence—you know, I’m pretty straightforward. These people came out, and I was very clear; I want to tell the House this. I was very fortunate, because one of my colleagues decided that he was not going to use his private member’s time and he made it available, so I was able to access this time. As I explained to the people who have come here, it gave me a chance—because the bill cannot go forward. This is the reality. It’s the end of our session and I did not want to bring them all the way up here with an expectation of a bill being able to go forward. But I said, “I would like you to come up. I will bring the bill to second reading so you can hear what’s being said around the House, so it can get back out into the public domain.”
I’m committed, once I’m re-elected—that’s a little presumptuous; hopefully I’m re-elected—to bringing the bill forward again, and this kind of debate and input from the House and from my colleagues will help maybe redefine the bill, take in some of the concerns that were mentioned, that maybe need to be addressed. When it’s brought back for the next session of Parliament after the election, then I’m confident that we will be able to move the bill forward and have it passed.
So I just want to conclude and say thank you very much to the House for allowing me to say a few words on this bill, and thank you to everyone who has taken all the time out of their busy schedules to come all the way up here. From Fort Erie to Toronto is a long trip, but it just shows, for everyone else, how passionate you are and how much you believe in this bill. So from my heart I thank you very much for that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate? Seeing none, the honourable member does have two additional minutes if he would like to use it for a wrap-up.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I will stop with that. I think we’ve covered it very well. I appreciate it, and I’m one of those who, when it’s time not to speak any further, I don’t speak any further. So thank you very much.

(Please share your comments on this issue below and visit Niagara At Large at www.niagaraatlarge.com for more news and commentary on matters of interest and concern to resident in our greater Niagara region and beyond.)