EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 18, 1995

.1539

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, everybody, for showing up today. I'm sorry I'm a little bit late. I was putting out some fires down on the home front. Of course, all you politicians know what that's like - sometimes you have to do that.

Let's get right into business. This is our first official briefing and our first official set of witnesses on the proposed Oceans Act since it was referred to us after second reading. We had a preliminary overview of the bill, I think, the first day Parliament resumed. A number of questions were raised at that time, and we asked you to come back.

Now that we're officially examining the proposed Oceans Act after second reading, we decided the best thing we could do was to have a more detailed briefing, almost a clause-by-clause, so that the members of the committee have a better understanding of what the bill is all about.

.1540

It is easy to read about it; it is easy to read the bill. It is quite a different thing to understand the impact of the words as well as understand what is not in the bill. So as we undergo our deliberations, we may be able to suggest to the government some improvements to the bill, which may include a broadening of its scope.

That being said, do all members have the books from yesterday? Ms Wayne, have they given you the books?

Mrs. Wayne (Saint John): No.

The Chairman: Do we have a set of books for Mrs. Wayne? Okay. She's a very busy lady. She has to look after a lot of committees.

Now, who is going to lead off for us? Maybe we can start by having everyone at the end of the table introduce themselves and indicate what they do at the department. Then we'll go on with the briefing.

Dr. L. Scott Parsons (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Scott Parsons. I'm the Assistant Deputy Minister of Science in DFO and also the lead responsibility within the department for Bill C-98.

Mr. Michael Turner (Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Department of Transport): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm Michael Turner, Deputy Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard.

Mr. Gerry Swanson (Director General, Habitat Management and Environmental Science Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I'm Gerry Swanson. I'm the Director General of Habitat Management and Environmental Science with DFO.

Ms Michelle Chartrand (Director General, Program Planning and Coordination, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I'm Michelle Chartrand, Director General of Program Planning and Coordination in the science sector.

Mr. Allan Willis (Senior General Counsel, Constitutional and International Law Section, Department of Justice): I'm Allan Willis. I'm Senior General Counsel with the Constitutional and International Law Section of the Department of Justice.

Mr. Robert Rochon (Director General and Deputy Legal Adviser, Bureau of Legal Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): I'm Robert Rochon, Deputy Legal Adviser from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Earl Wiseman (Acting Director General, International Relations, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I'm Earl Wiseman, Acting Director General, International Relations, Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Chairman: Mr. Parsons, we'll start off with you.

Dr. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're pleased to be here with you today as you embark on this very important task of reviewing Bill C-98.

In an attempt to facilitate your review of the Oceans Act, you have been provided with three binders, I think, over the last short while. The first contains a brief overview of the Oceans Act, deals with some of the issues raised by the standing committee at that pre-briefing you referred to, and also contains some general background information. The second contains a collection of legislation that's directly related to the Canada Oceans Act as it is currently drafted. The third contains a collection of other legislation related to oceans.

We also have a hand-out, and I think copies have been made available to the clerk to be passed around. This is in essence what I will be speaking to.

The Chairman: Does everybody have that? Hold it - Mr. Wells doesn't have it.

So, Mr. Parsons, your intention is not to go over the responses in the first part of the standing committee briefing, the white binder.

Dr. Parsons: I wasn't intending to start with that. I was intending to start with the detailed overview and then we could come back to those particular issues.

The Chairman: Okay.

Dr. Parsons: The objective of this bill, the Canada Oceans Act, is to establish a framework for oceans management and marine resource and environmental protection in Canada. To establish this framework, basically three elements were considered to be required: first, the definition of the oceans area over which Canada exercises its jurisdiction and manages and protects resources; second, the principles that would be used to guide Canada in managing its ocean resources; and third, the consolidation of some of its oceans programs to improve the effectiveness of oceans management initiatives. In essence, these three elements correspond to the three parts of the Canada Oceans Act.

Before those three parts, you have the preamble. Although the preamble doesn't in essence have any legal effect, it does provide a context and some comments on the intent of the oceans legislation. It talks about Canada as a world leader in oceans and marine resource management, and it alludes to Canada's pioneering initiatives in that field.

.1545

The preamble also highlights the need to focus on the understanding of oceans, their processes, our marine resources, dependence on marine ecosystems and the need to have an integrated approach to the management of these areas and resources.

The first substantive part of the act is part I, which deals with Canada's maritime zones. In summary, four zones are defined and described: the territorial sea; the contiguous zone; the exclusive economic zone; and the continental shelf. This section of the act also lists Canada's rights and responsibilities within each of the maritime zones.

As we move now through part I, discussing it a bit, you may wish to refer to a map of the maritime zones. You have it there. This illustrates the extent of each of the maritime zones. This is also shown on the chart there. It shows where the baselines are and the contiguous zone, the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone. It gives an indication of the extent of the continental shelf.

Coming back to the territorial sea, in 1970 Canada declared a 12-mile territorial sea. The territorial sea basically consists of a 12-mile zone that extends seaward from baselines that are drawn. In the territorial sea, Canada has full sovereign rights and responsibilities. ``Full sovereign rights'' means this area is considered Canadian territory, and all federal laws apply as if this territory were part of the land mass.

A new concept, introduced in part I, is the contiguous zone. This has been discussed in the context of the Law of the Sea Convention and is provided for in the Law of the Sea Convention, but at the moment it's not incorporated in Canadian law.

The contiguous zone is a 12-mile-wide zone that is measured from the outer edge of the territorial sea. In other words, it's another 12-mile zone adjacent to, and seaward of, the territorial sea. In the contiguous zone Canada has the right to prevent the infringement of its fiscal, immigration, sanitary and customs laws on Canadian territory.

In practical terms, for example, this would mean that a Canadian enforcement officer could prevent a ship suspected of carrying illegal substances from approaching Canadian territory, once having entered the contiguous zone, or a Canadian enforcement officer could arrest an individual known to have sold drugs in Canada if he is on a Canadian ship still within the contiguous zone.

As everybody is aware, of course, we've had a 200-mile fishery zone since 1977, but the Law of the Sea Convention provides for more than that. It provides for the concept of an exclusive economic zone. This legislation for the first time puts forward for Canada an exclusive economic zone, which is also a 200-mile zone measured as seaward from that reference baseline there, the coast.

In the exclusive economic zone, Canada's sovereign rights relate to the exploration and exploitation, the conservation and management, of living and non-living resources in the water column and the subsoil and the seabed below those waters. More specifically, in addition to the conservation and protection of resources, Canada has the right to establish and use artificial islands and structures; to conduct and regulate marine scientific research; to protect and preserve the marine environment; and to apply federal laws related to these activities.

The exclusive economic zone covers a surface area of about 4.7 million square kilometres, which is roughly equivalent to 50% of the land mass of Canada.

Coming to the continental shelf, for the sake of clarity you may wish to refer to the cross-section of the maritime zones, included in the hand-out on page 8.

The continental shelf is defined as the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas extending beyond the territorial sea of Canada. The continental shelf extends seaward to either of two possibilities. One is the outer edge of the continental margin, which is considered to be the submerged prolongation of the land mass of Canada, or to a distance of 200 miles from the baseline of the territorial sea, corresponding to the outer limit of the exclusive economic zone - whichever of these is the greater.

.1550

In the case of the Atlantic coast of Canada, for example, if you can just glance at that map, you'll see that heavy black line outside of the coloured areas. You can see that on the Atlantic coast the continental shelf will extend well beyond 200 nautical miles. In some areas off the coast of Newfoundland it is expected to extend to the maximum allowable distance under the Law of the Sea - 350 nautical miles.

On the Pacific coast, on the other end, the continental shelf as defined in one sense would be within 200 miles of the baseline. In essence, therefore, the edge of the exclusive economic zone defines the edge of the continental shelf.

The extent of the continental shelf in the Arctic is not yet clear because of limited data and a complex configuration of the continental margin.

With respect to the rights over the continental shelf, Canada has sovereign rights for purposes of exploration and the exploitation of the non-living natural resources of the seabed and the subsoil. Laws that can apply on the continental shelf are those that affect activities associated with structures involving the exploration of the shelf or the exploitation of those non-living resources. But Canada also has the right to exploit and manage sedentary species. These are species that at the harvestable stage are either immobile on or under the seabed or unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or subsoil.

A recent example that got some publicity a year or so ago was the Icelandic scallops 200 miles outside the Grand Banks. Snow crabs also fit in that category.

Canada has not yet delineated the edge of the continental shelf. In order to delineate the outer limit of the continental shelf beyond 200 miles on the Atlantic coast, for example, in the Arctic, you would have to submit geophysical and sedimentological information to a special commission, set up in connection with the implementation of the Law of the Sea Convention, on the limits of the continental shelf. Preliminary work on this issue has been initiated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and by Natural Resources Canada, where a lot of the relevant expertise resides.

With respect to part I, a number of key pieces of legislation in fact have been incorporated into this particular part of the act. The first of these is the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zone Act. This legislation, enacted in 1971, established the maritime boundaries for the territorial sea we talked about and also for fishing zones.

The Canadian maritime zones defined by that act are now modified in the Oceans Act to include the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and a description with respect to the continental shelf. As well, the original provisions of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zone Act have been incorporated.

Because maritime boundaries are an important aspect of Canada's foreign policy, the Oceans Act provides that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will retain administrative responsibility for those provisions of the Oceans Act that define Canada's maritime boundaries, that in fact deal with the definition of these zones.

The second key piece of legislation that's incorporated is the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act, known as CLOAA. This legislation, more recently introduced, in 1991, provides for the extension of federal and provincial laws to regulate activities that fall under Canadian jurisdiction, in accordance with international law. The provisions of CLOAA are incorporated into the Oceans Act and CLOAA will be repealed through the passage of the Oceans Act.

.1555

Administration of the provisions of the Oceans Act that deal with this question of the application of Canadian laws to the offshore really involve the legal expertise of the Minister of Justice, and we have a very senior representative from Justice with us today, as we have a representative from Foreign Affairs. Administrative authority for those provisions respecting CLOAA that have been incorporated will remain with the Minister of Justice under the bill as it's drafted.

There's also another significant backdrop, which I've alluded to, and that is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As most of you are aware, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which came into force this past November when a sufficient number of countries ratified it, establishes a comprehensive framework for the regulation of all ocean space. Among other things, UNCLOS prescribes methods by which coastal states may define their maritime areas - there are more complex discussions in there, such as the delimitation of the continental shelf - and it codifies the rights and responsibilities of coastal states within these areas.

In drafting the Oceans Act, Canada has adopted all the maritime zone definitions and respected all the procedures that are prescribed in that Law of the Sea Convention. The legislative authorities and, for example, the proposed environmental protection and conservation initiatives described in the Oceans Act are in concurrence with the Law of the Sea Convention.

Passage of the Canada Oceans Act would not by itself ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. Ratification of the UNCLOS convention by Canada would have to be accomplished through the deposit of an instrument of ratification, a formal declaration, which at some point would be tabled with the Secretary General of the United Nations. Mr. Rochon could talk in more detail about this, but Canada would ratify UNCLOS at an appropriate time, taking all Canadian interests into account.

The second substantive part of the Oceans Act is that dealing with a concept of an oceans management strategy, part II. As mentioned, the underlying objective is to establish a framework for a new approach to manage and protect the oceans and their resources. The oceans management strategy concept will apply to estuaries and coastal and marine ecosystems and will be based on two guiding principles: sustainable development and integrated management.

Sustainable development is defined in the bill, in essence using the Brundtland commission report of 1987, as that development that will be conducted in such a way as to meet the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations.

Integrated management refers to the development of long-term plans for the management of activities occurring within the estuaries and coastal and marine waters. Development of such plans would imply close coordination among regulators and open communication with all ocean stakeholders, including developers and conservationists. The principle recognizes that the oceans, their resources, and their associated conservation and development cannot be managed in isolation, one from the other.

In part II of this bill, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is designated as the federal lead for the development of a national strategy for the management of coastal and marine ecosystems. He is also obligated to ensure that the strategy is based on these guiding principles of sustainable development and integrated management. The minister is required to collaborate with other interested parties, including provinces, other federal colleagues, non-governmental organizations, and first nations. The minister would be directed and authorized to lead the development and implementation of integrated resource management plans designed to implement regionally the national oceans management strategy in the estuaries and coastal and marine waters of Canada.

.1600

Regional plans will be designed to integrate conservation and development initiatives that affect these waters, and these plans are referred to as integrated resource management plans.

The bill is based on the premise that regulators, users, and others with a stake in the oceans need to work together to develop and manage oceans resources that are of interest to a wide variety of groups and jurisdictions. In a practical sense, the development of integrated management plans signifies, as I said, that federal departments will not operate in isolation, one from the other, in the exercise of their oceans-related mandates; that federal departments will not implement plans that affect, for example, the coastal zone without collaborating with interested parties; that resource use conflicts would be addressed at the planning stage and not as field operations are begun; and that resource management decisions would be based on regional as well as national goals.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, under the bill, is ultimately responsible for the development and the implementation of this new approach to oceans management. He is the lead federal authority accountable for the development and implementation of the integrated management plan approach, for example.

The bill provides for the minister certain discretionary powers: to develop and implement policies and programs focused on oceans; to coordinate federal policies and programs affecting oceans; to establish a process to develop and implement these integrated management plans by establishing or recognizing existing bodies to advise or manage the implementation; to enter into cooperative agreements with stakeholders by collecting, analysing, and sharing information, by coordinating logistics and providing assistance to increase our knowledge on the oceans and their resources, and by establishing marine environmental quality guidelines and criteria.

In addition to this general framework, it is also critical that certain concrete initiatives be undertaken; for example, to set aside marine areas of particular importance or vulnerability, to set standards whose objectives are the health of the ocean system, and to take this integrated resource management approach.

Part II of the bill provides for the establishment of marine protected areas. It also provides for the establishment of marine environmental quality guidelines and the integrated resource management planning concept and its application to guide regulators and promoters of activities affecting estuaries and coastal and marine waters. There is also, of course, some reference to penalties and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with such initiatives.

Turning to marine protected areas, one of these concrete initiatives, the bill as drafted provides the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with the authority to establish marine protected areas to the limit of the exclusive economic zone. The purpose would be to conserve and protect fisheries resources, their food sources, and their habitat. Within these areas specific measures could be applied by geographic area, by feature, by species, and by resource activity. For example, no take zones, no capture zones, could be established in an area during a specific time period to protect a resource or the habitat.

Measures could also limit the use of certain types of gear, or the conduct of certain activities, or discharge of certain substances within such marine protected areas. Authority would also be provided for the establishment on an emergency and temporary basis of marine protected areas for the purposes of protecting a resource or habitat at risk that is considered to be in imminent danger or at immediate risk, but such emergency measures would apply for only 90 days. Also, there's provision that the conservation and protection measures prescribed would be subject to penalties for non-compliance.

.1605

The second concrete initiative is the establishment of marine environmental quality guidelines. The act as drafted provides the minister with the authority to establish marine environmental quality guidelines and criteria to conserve and protect the integrity and the quality of the coastal and marine waters.

``Marine environmental quality'' generally refers to the physical, chemical and biological condition of the waters in the marine environment. Measurements could include water temperature; level of contaminants in water column; the fauna; or the bottom sediments. Some marine environmental quality guidelines would be numerical limits while others may be conditions in the seas as derived from a number of biological, chemical and physical parameters of the receiving environment or the resources.

Given the collaborative nature of this new oceans management approach, parties other than DFO would be involved in the development and application of these guidelines and criteria for activities over which they have jurisdiction or for which they are responsible.

I've talked about the integrated resource management concept, which is mentioned specifically in the legislation. People are probably more familiar generally with the term ``coastal zone management'' than they are with the term ``integrated management'', as it is used in the Oceans Act. Some witnesses that I think will be appearing before the committee could probably well focus on the coastal zone management concept.

Coastal zone management terminology has traditionally been used to refer to the management of activities occurring in waters immediately adjacent to the coast and on the coast. Integrated management, as used in this legislation, in the case of the oceans management strategy will apply not only to the coastal zone but also to marine waters further offshore. So it is a term that is intended to encompass the concept of coastal zone management, not to replace or exclude it.

Clearly, it is the coastal zone that is subject to the greatest industrial stress, and this is the most likely to be subject to conflicting uses. This is also the area that is perhaps most critical to the survival of many of our marine resources. It is therefore important that particular and immediate attention be directed toward the development of integrated management plans for the coastal zone.

In fact, as an aside, some work has been done in that area already. There has been work on development of regional coastal zone management projects and plans involving local authorities, regional authorities and provincial and federal authorities. I can think specifically of examples in Nova Scotia, where the Nova Scotia government has been working on coastal zone management planning initiatives and where local communities have also been involved in some particular pilot projects. For example, I'm familiar with one in Shelburne County.

With respect to enforcement, the Oceans Act provides for the designation of enforcement officers with powers required to ensure compliance with regulatory measures that might flow from this legislation. Offences, fines and penalties provided in the act are similar to those found in other environmental protection statutes.

I also would like to make the point that although there's reference in the act to enforcement officers and enforcement and so forth, this does not mean additional officers will necessarily be required for this purpose. There will, of course, be the opportunity to multi-task existing DFO officers involved right now, for example, with habitat management activities, and also to multi-task officers and other personnel of the Canadian Coast Guard, which is now part of the new Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I turn now to part III of the act, which talks about the powers, duties and functions of the minister. In summary, the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for all matters relating to oceans not otherwise assigned to other departments is referred to in part III. In addition to the responsibilities already assigned to the minister in the current Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, the new responsibility of the minister for Canadian Coast Guard functions is clearly recognized in this legislation.

.1610

The merger of Canadian Coast Guard functions with the former DFO mandate, as occurred on April 1 of this year, consolidates within one department now approximately 70% of the civilian/federal ocean-related resources of the Government of Canada.

Part III also recognizes the authority of the minister to coordinate ocean science policies and programs for the Government of Canada and to conduct, or cause to be conducted, specific activities in delivering its mandate for hydrography and marine sciences.

As the federal authority responsible for coordination of marine science programs, the minister is charged with the identification of technical and information-sharing requirements respecting the conduct of scientific research by any foreign vessels in the Canadian zone. There's a specific provision in the act dealing with this.

Finally, there's also a provision for the minister to fix fees for services, for the use of facilities and products, and for the provision of privileges in the regulatory process.

With respect to the Canadian Coast Guard, as the minister now responsible for coastal services the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' specific powers and duties and functions as outlined in this act include the provision of services for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waters through the provision of aids to navigation systems and services, marine communications and traffic management services, and ice-breaking and ice management services.

The minister is also responsible for the marine component of the federal search and rescue program; for pleasure craft safety, including the regulation of the construction, inspection, equipment and operation of pleasure craft; for marine pollution prevention and response; and for supporting the activities of DFO and other federal agencies in the provision of ships, aircraft and other marine services.

The Oceans Act establishes that the minister has delegated the authority of overseeing the provision of these services to the coast guard commissioner. The deputy commissioner is here today.

The minister is also authorized in part III of this act to conduct, or cause to be conducted, hydrographic and marine scientific activities. The minister has a lead role in developing an ecosystems-based management approach for oceans. He's required to promote the understanding of oceans, their processes and marine resources and habitats.

To ensure these duties are met, the act recognizes and mandates the conduct of key marine and hydrographic scientific activities. Such activities include data collection, hydrographic and oceanographic surveys, scientific fisheries surveys, and related research. The activities also include the dissemination of information, the sale of products, the preparation of nautical charts, and the participation in the development of technology.

The minister in the act delegates the authority for overseeing such hydrographic activities to the chief hydrographer, referred to in the act at the moment as the ``dominion hydrographer''.

The Chairman: For whom does the dominion hydrographer currently work?

Dr. Parsons: He reports to me, the assistant deputy minister.

The Chairman: Is that the way it has been?

Dr. Parsons: Yes, that's the way it has been.

The Chairman: Okay.

Dr. Parsons: I briefly mentioned the provision applying to foreign vessels. On page 28 there's a brief reference to how the act provides for the minister to establish guidelines for foreign vessels performing research in Canadian waters and allows the minister to request that a foreign vessel conducting research in Canadian waters provide the results of that research to Canada.

I also mentioned briefly the fees issue. On page 29 there's a reference specifically to those fee provisions, outlining that the minister may fix fees for a service or a use of a facility. Examples of that would include ice-breaking services and certain other marine services. As drafted, the legislation provides that these fees may not exceed the cost of providing the service or the use of the facility.

.1615

The second category is that the minister may fix fees for products, rights and privileges provided under the act. Products, for example, would include graphic charts. Rights and privileges could include such things as access to either hydrographic databases, navigational aids databases, or other similar things.

In this particular case, the fees could conceivably be more than the full cost if the benefits to the users exceeded the full cost of providing or selling the product as a right or privilege.

There is a third category in which the minister may fix fees for regulatory processes or approvals. This is generally done in the context of Treasury Board user fee policy. There is no immediate application within the act of that third category.

But before fixing any fees, the minister has certain obligations. He must consult with persons or bodies who have an interest. The fees, in fact, are treated as if they were regulations. They have to be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. The fees under this legislation are treated and scrutinized as if they were regulations.

There's one other comment I would make on that, because there may in fact be some confusion. This particular section of this act is not the vehicle by which licence fees for access to fisheries resources, for example, would be established. That would be done under the auspices of the Fisheries Act. Amendments to the Fisheries Act, I think, could be coming before the committee in the near future.

The Chairman: Can I ask a question on that? I'm sorry, I've been quiet so far. Why would it be referred over to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations? What does it mean that it's scrutinized as if it were a regulation? It's just as to form, is it not? If it's scrutinized as if it were a regulation, it's as to the form that it takes, and not necessarily whether or not the fee is fair. Am I right there?

Say it comes to us, for instance, or to whomever would be sitting as the fisheries committee. I would suspect that they would want to examine the fee to see whether or not it was reasonable.

Our job is different from that of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. It's a very important and vibrant committee, but why would it go there?

Dr. Parsons: I was emphasizing that point because there has been some concern expressed in some quarters - not necessarily here - that by having legislation that enables the minister to set fees like this, it bypasses the normal regulatory process, in effect. The minister could wake up one morning saying ``Eureka! I think I'll set the fees tomorrow at such and such a level'', when in fact there is a requirement for a consultative process for pre-publication and then for scrutiny.

That doesn't, of course, exclude the consideration of the issue of fees by this committee -

The Chairman: It probably does, though.

Dr. Parsons: - from the perspective that you raised.

The Chairman: I'll raise it when you're through, because it's an area I want to get into.

Dr. Parsons: Following the format I followed before and finishing up on part III...in earlier sections I talked about the relevant legislation that was touched upon, incorporated or amended in some way by these various parts of the Oceans Act.

With respect to part III, which I've been talking about, one of the key pieces of legislation is the Canada Shipping Act. By this legislation, responsibilities for some sections of this act have been transferred to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans through the consequential amendments section of the legislation.

These include the power to designate rescue coordinators; the powers and duties of receivers of wrecks; responsibility for lights, buoys, fog signals, and Sable Island, interestingly enough - Mike could elaborate on that; vessel traffic services; oil pollution response; and the power, as a coastal state, to intervene to prevent pollution. These are essentially things that were being administered previously in the Department of Transport by the Canadian Coast Guard under legislative amendments made to tie in with the consolidation and merger of the coast guard with the former DFO.

.1620

Another act that was touched upon is the Coasting Trade Act, but only in a minor way. This act basically deals with coastal trade, but there is a section in this act that deals with the granting of consent to foreign vessels wishing to conduct marine research within Canadian waters. The Canada Oceans Act now would provide for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to request a foreign vessel to provide research results as a condition of consent, as I mentioned.

A third piece of legislation, which has relevance or bearing, is the Resources and Technical Surveys Act, which falls largely under the Minister of Natural Resources. There's a section of this act that pertains indirectly to the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for hydrographic surveys. The relevant provisions have now been more adequately dealt with in the drafting of this Oceans Act.

In fact, there are a multitude of other consequential amendments that I won't dwell on here at the moment. There's a substantive one, such as the repealing of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act and the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act, but many of the consequential amendments - there is a long list, and Allan Willis could elaborate on this - are to reflect the new definitions of Canadian waters in other legislation to include the contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone, and incorporating these definitions into the various other pieces of legislation.

So that's a general overview. In summarizing that portion, I would like to stress the fact that the Oceans Act is enabling legislation and, as presently drafted, it would provide the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with powers that would permit him to sort of get the ball rolling on this new oceans management approach, as well as dealing with the maritime zones area and the merger of DFO and the coast guard.

Clearly, the success of this proposed new oceans management approach depends on the willingness of federal, provincial, territorial, native and other groups to collaborate in this type of approach. The Oceans Act is really a major step toward reorienting the country's approach to the management of the oceans.

We look forward to the outcome of the review that you will be conducting over the weeks and months ahead, and we welcome your questions. If we're unable today to deal satisfactorily with a particular question, then I would like to provide you, if possible, with a written response by Friday of this week, before you go into sessions with other witnesses next week.

The Chairman: Okay. Just before I go to Mr. Scott, I'll ask you once again about that other thing, which is a process question. I'm very wary of legislation that comes in that is fanatic, but in actual fact it leaves way too much to regulations, because it means that it takes it out of the scrutiny of the Parliament of Canada many times.

Over the years there's been a trend in previous governments, and in this government as well, toward doing that: more framework legislation, less detail, more stuff over to the regulators. When that stuff happens, it worries me as a parliamentarian that it makes us even less relevant than perhaps the people think we are.

I want to ask this again. I think the committee structure is a good way to ensure that the goals of legislation are debated and explained when they go through the process of becoming law, in terms of the way it's handled in actual fact when it gets to the operatives out there who are handling it.

I know Mr. Scott will probably have some questions on this and some others, but on the fee side of it, why would any fee be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations?

To all my colleagues there, I say it's a wonderful committee, but it is rather a dry one. I'm not sure exactly what they could do about this, other than to make sure that it's in its proper form. I don't think they're there to hear witnesses and debate whether or not it's an appropriate fee.

.1625

Who wants to deal with that one?

Dr. Parsons: This is a general requirement of the Government of Canada in the approach that it's pursuing. In the amendments and changes to various legislation now, this fee, or this particular type of provision you see in draft legislation, is cropping up in other legislation. The Treasury Board is mandating a consistent and uniform approach.

I'll go back to the point you raised earlier, specifically with respect to this committee. This committee, obviously, has the power and the purview to look at fees, for example.

The Chairman: Sure it does, but there is a difference. We can look at it. If the government is not compelled to have us look at it, then it is probably less compelled to listen to anything we have to say.

I can go for a week and go into anything we want, but if the government is compelled with a piece of legislation before they take an action, then the subject-matter is referred to a committee and it's more likely that two things will happen. First, there will be consultations with people who are affected. Second, the government will be compelled, somehow, to listen to the results of the committee. That's sort of a reality check that we have to do sometimes.

I don't know. I'll ask my clerk while Mr. Scott is asking his questions. From what I can gather, the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny and Regulations is a good way just to shuffle something off to make sure it's correct in form, but not to debate the principles. Am I right there?

Mr. Turner: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could speak on that perspective. I have been involved in a number of regulations and regulatory efforts and I appeared before various committees, including the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

The committee that most fee proposal regulations, as well as all other technical regulations, are referred to, in my experience, certainly does more and expects much more of us than simply whether it's in the right technical form.

We are required these days to demonstrate clearly that we've gone through the necessary consultative processes involving the people who would be impacted, who are stakeholders, if you like, or client groups. Taking those considerations into account in the development of the final regulations, we are required to demonstrate through what's called RIAS, the regulatory impact analysis statement, that we have considered issues such as benefit-cost analysis, environmental impact, and a number of other issues, as a part of the process of developing a regulation.

The committee, in certainly my experience, does provide a considerable degree of oversight as to whether we've done our homework, if I could put it that way, including whether we did our homework with respect to what the impact of a regulation would be.

I certainly concede it is not the same as having a specialized committee, such as the fisheries committee, look at a particular regulation, but there is always that route too, of course, as Dr. Parsons mentioned.

The Chairman: I think I just got my first amendment to propose.

Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions to ask. The first one relates to duties and responsibilities. You've highlighted that the minister has a responsibility for collaboration with provincial jurisdictions, or provinces and others. You mentioned specifically, I believe, aboriginal and environmental groups.

Am I given to understand that it is set out in legislation that the minister has an obligation to consult with these people?

Dr. Parsons: The examples I was using are not spelled out in legislation. There's a description of the oceans management strategy process. As for the fact that a minister would go out and consult with stakeholders and interest groups, I was using examples of groups that would have an interest.

Mr. Scott: But the final authority for decision-making rests with the minister, not with other groups or outside -

Dr. Parsons: Yes, it's where in this act he is given the final decision-making authority for those particular areas in which he has that final authority.

Mr. Scott: My next question relates to the ministry of environment. I guess, being unfamiliar with current legislation, I'd like to get a brief overview of what role the Minister of the Environment plays right now in the environmental regulation of the oceans and the maritime zones.

How is this going to change? What is this going to do to the ministry of environment after this act is adopted? Is this in fact going to mean a downsizing of the ministry of environment? Does this mean that some assets are going to be transferred from one department to another? Or are we going to have a growth of one department while the other one remains essentially at the level it's at?

.1630

Dr. Parsons: Addressing the last part of your questions first, the specific things currently provided for in this draft legislation that have a bearing on the Department of the Environment, or activities that the Department of the Environment has been involved in, are, for example, the marine environmental quality section. I referred to the minister having the authority to establish marine environmental guidelines and criteria. That particular section would, in essence...that's not defined so much in legislation per se, but it's a role that has been exercised.

A second area is the coastal zone management area that I talked about where, not in legislation but de facto, the Minister of the Environment has exercised certain leadership powers previously. This legislation would clearly establish the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as the lead authority.

At the moment there are not extensive resources involved in those activities within the Department of the Environment. I say that because we have had extensive discussions with the Department of the Environment on this issue over recent months.

You asked me earlier what other activities Environment is involved in with the oceans. One clear example is the ocean disposal provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, where the Minister of the Environment is legislatively mandated to deal with ocean disposal issues, and issues permits and so forth under regulations related to that.

Discussions have in fact occurred between the two departments about whether or not those particular provisions should be part of the Oceans Act. There was a memorandum of intent at one point, signed by two deputy ministers, which expressed the intent to move in that direction, but those discussions have not been concluded as of today.

Mr. Scott: That was one of the areas I specifically had in mind when I raised the question. You say there are not significant resources or assets allocated to the ministry of environment right now, or being used by the ministry of environment. By transferring the responsibility through this bill to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, are you telling me there isn't going to be any duplication? One of the concerns we have here is that by consolidating legislation under the umbrella of the Oceans Act, we're not going to end up with duplication as a result. The objective, if I'm not mistaken, is to simplify, not complicate, and it's to reduce expenses, not increase expenses.

Dr. Parsons: I can assure you that those particular provisions I referred to will not be increasing expenditures by the Government of Canada. There have been discussions between the two departments on these issues and the desirability of simplifying the approach.

The Department of the Environment does have certain expenditures related to oceans. I referred to one: the ocean disposal provision. They also have another one, which I don't think is legislatively mandated: the shellfish monitoring program. There's also some expenditure there. Discussions are still under way about the possible transfer of functions between DOE and DFO on those issues, but those discussions also involve other issues involving freshwater and inland matters.

The Chairman: Inland waters are still the responsibility of the federal government, though, as of this point.

Mr. Scott: I have one more question and then I'll cede the floor. You talk about fixing fees. I appreciate your comments about the fact that this does not open the door for access fees and licence fees for fishermen, that this is something completely different, unless I misunderstood you.

Dr. Parsons: That's correct. This has nothing to do with licence fees for fishery.

.1635

Mr. Scott: So if I understand it, what this part of the legislation is partly intended to cover is that if I'm ABC Corporation and I have a project I would like to build, and it has implications for the marine environment, this will then make my project subject to an environmental review by the department.

Dr. Parsons: When it comes to environmental assessment or review there is existing legislation - the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, CEAA - and an agency set up under that which generally deals with coordinating the Government of Canada's issues with respect to environmental assessment.

From a Department of Fisheries and Oceans perspective, at the moment under the Fisheries Act there are habitat management provisions. For example, section 35 of the Fisheries Act deals with issues pertaining to alteration and destruction of fish habitat. If an authorization is required under that section of the Fisheries Act - and it's not just inland; it can be coastal or marine - it will trigger a review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act if an authorization has to be issued under subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act.

This legislation is not introducing another environmental assessment review process.

Mr. Scott: No, but if I understand it, or maybe I'm misunderstanding it, it contemplates levying a fee against a proponent who would be bringing forward a proposal that was subject to an environmental review.

Dr. Parsons: I don't think that example would be quite correct.

Mr. Scott: That's not part of the intent of the fees that can be charged -

Dr. Parsons: No, not for environmental assessment reviews. That is covered by other legislation.

Mr. Scott: My final observation is that I think there is significant potential for conflict here with provincial jurisdictions. I imagine we're going to hear from some provincial representatives before we're done. Have you had communications with the provinces, particularly the maritime provinces, which may have a strong interest in what's being done here?

Dr. Parsons: Yes, we have consulted with the coastal provinces in particular, on the east coast and with British Columbia. The bill as drafted does not infringe upon provincial rights or jurisdictions, but in both your reading of the legislation and the comments I have made, you will have noticed a certain emphasis on the need for collaboration among different jurisdictions to ensure that there is a comprehensive approach to ocean management issues, coastal zone management issues and so forth. There is no decision-making power given here that would infringe upon those other jurisdictions.

Mr. Scott: You haven't heard any concerns expressed by the provinces with respect to this legislation?

Dr. Parsons: I'm aware that the Province of Quebec, as of today, has expressed certain concerns, but that is a very recent development and I have not had an opportunity to look at it closely.

The Chairman: It may be one of those developments that may not be as much of a concern on the 31st of the month.

Mr. Scott: That's all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chairman: Before I go over to Ms Wayne, I have a question dealing with marine protected areas. In the briefing and in the background material, you talk about the powers of the minister with respect to the designation of marine protected areas. You use the example that they might be species-specific, to close a particular fishery or whatever. Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not already have those powers?

Dr. Parsons: He does have certain powers under the Fisheries Act, which I presume is what you're thinking of.

The Chairman: Yes, under the Fisheries Act. He wouldn't have the power -

Dr. Parsons: Certain powers to close, where you have quotas for fisheries, for example. You can have closed seasons and times and so forth under the Fisheries Act.

The Chairman: If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans believes a particular species is in difficulty, he has fairly substantial powers to change regulations with respect to quotas and things like that under the Fisheries Act, doesn't he?

.1640

Dr. Parsons: He certainly has the power with respect to quotas, yes. He has the power with respect to setting seasons during which fishing can be conducted.

The Chairman: Maybe the best way to satisfy my inquiry is to tell me what new powers he would have under here that he doesn't have under the Fisheries Act.

Dr. Parsons: The way this is constructed, he would basically have the power to take an area and, for example, close or regulate activities in that area on a longer-term basis, in a way that's more from the point of view of the protection of the area rather than dealing with a quota for a particular species per se.

Gerry, would you like to elaborate on that?

Mr. Swanson: The authorities under the Fisheries Act relate to the regulation of the fishery itself. The provisions under this bill could be used to govern activities that are not necessarily fishing but that could have an impact on the fishery. Navigation could be one example, to ensure that the activity of boating or whatever is such that it doesn't impact on fisheries -

The Chairman: You would not have those powers under what's been transferred from Transport under the coast guard?

Mr. Turner: If I may, sir, those powers with respect to the restriction of navigation that are contained under instruments such as the boating restriction regulations pertaining to small vessels apply essentially to the regulation of navigation per se and the way it's conducted, as opposed to the ability to prohibit navigation of certain types to protect the environment or the habitat. There is a distinction there.

If I may give a practical example, we have run into problems in the past where the coast guard was involved in an oil spill response and was not able to put its hands on the necessary regulatory instrument to restrict the movement of vessels in a certain area that would otherwise be obstructing the operation or that have the potential to make the situation worse with respect to the protection of the habitat or the fishery.

The Chairman: So there are new powers in there that currently don't exist, or if they do exist, they're rather convoluted in their application. It's more direct. It makes it easier for these things to happen.

Mr. Turner: Yes.

If I could go back to your question on the navigation aspect, you must remember that the navigation acts we still deal with, including the CSA, are rather old instruments that did not envisage issues such as environmental protection at the time. This legislation would provide for authority to take care of situations like that, which are not specifically enabled in other legislation.

The Chairman: I have a very quick question to our colleague from the Department of Justice, Mr. Willis. I think this would be directed towards you. It mentions in here that when the appropriate time comes around, we'll be ratifying the Law of the Sea. I thought we were going to do that after the contentious issue dealing with seabed mining was addressed by the United Nations last year. Can you give me some sense as to when this is going to be done?

Dr. Parsons: Mr. Rochon would -

The Chairman: Sorry, I have the wrong....

Mr. Rochon, when is the appropriate time? We claim to be a leader in marine policy and international law with respect to the oceans. It seems to me that the last hurdle we had, the big objection that we and some other industrialized nations had, has been overcome by consensus. So when are we going to do this? Why are we waiting? Why is it not yet the appropriate time?

Mr. Rochon: Perhaps that's a question to put to ministers, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: They told me to ask you.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rochon: All I can say is that by signing the convention in 1982, Canada indicated its intention to ratify the convention. As you know and as you rightly pointed out, there was a problem with respect to part XI dealing with seabed mining, and that was finally resolved last year. Now this government has declared its commitment and firm intention to go forward with ratification of the convention.

In order to do so, of course, one needs to look at the existing legislation and to identify those provisions in domestic legislation that need to be amended to be in conformity with the provisions under the Law of the Sea Convention. That indeed is what officials are in the process of doing. They are looking at existing legislation and preparing draft legislation that would enable us to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention. No decision has been made as to when we will ratify. The first step is to adopt legislation that will allow us to do so.

.1645

The Chairman: Soon I hope. Does this bill help with some of the things that have to be done in order for us to proclaim with any degree of integrity our hearings for the law of the sea, or do a bunch of other things have to be done as well?

Mr. Rochon: I think there are a number of other issues that have to be addressed. What this bill does, in keeping with existing customary international law as codified in the Law of the Sea Convention, is create a contiguous zone and an economic zone. That's something we want to do prior to ratifying the convention.

The Chairman: In practice we've been going about our business as if we had in law a definition of an economic zone.

Mr. Rochon: For all intents and purposes we've been exercising all the rights and responsibilities.

The Chairman: So we're just playing catch-up with our statutes.

Mrs. Wayne: I would like to ask a question with regard to the exclusive economic zone. Clause 16 of the Oceans Act would establish that fishing zones of Canada consist of areas of the sea adjacent to the coast of Canada. That would be prescribed in the regulations. This regulatory power would be exercised, by my understanding, by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs; that's paragraph 25(b).

We know that the ministers of the federal government work in close cooperation, but why are the fishing zones of Canada not being established on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans rather than on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Dr. Parsons: I'll turn to one of my colleagues to elaborate. In my remarks I did touch on that question when I talked about the delimitation of maritime boundaries and so on essentially being the responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I know Bob would like to elaborate on that.

Mr. Rochon: I'm not sure that there's much to add. There are a number of boundary disputes, as you know, on all our coasts, which have yet to be resolved. There are also issues related to special bodies of water, which are a matter of contention with other states. For that reason the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is responsible for international negotiations and for establishing the boundaries of Canada, has retained the administrative responsibility for applying the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, which is now being incorporated into the Oceans Act.

Mrs. Wayne: Okay. I'll pursue that a little further a little later. I want to ask another question, if I may, and this is to Mr. Turner.

I note that the coast guard, and I'm well aware of this, is responsible for the buoys. Whose responsibility is it, Mr. Turner? When you take the buoys and remove them, if someone has a problem.... For instance, this was done on the Saint John River and the Kennebecasis River. Eight boats grounded in one weekend and yet when we went back, with respect - and I have a lot of respect for our guys in the coast guard in Saint John. With all the cuts that have come, they're doing their best. But there is a problem, Mr. Turner, and who is responsible? Whom do we go to?

These people, the boaters, are all coming to me, Mr. Turner, wanting something done. I have to tell you that tourism is a big industry, and we have a lot of people who come from the United States. Those people would not take their boats up the river because of what happened this summer.

The Chairman: If you can solve that, I've got a few that you can solve too.

Mr. Turner: We only have the rest of the afternoon.

First, let me say that, yes, we certainly are responsible for aids to navigation, including the buoys.

We have, within the coast guard, levels of service defined for our aids to navigation system. We have the design, methodology, and criteria that define how we should decide where to put aids to navigation.

.1650

All that being said, we of course rely extensively on the expert opinion of our people in the field, in this case at the Saint John base, for example. When we do a review, which we do on a cyclical basis - we do roughly 20% of the country every year, or in other words have a five-year cycle - we look at all of the aids to navigation in a particular area. We apply the levels of service criteria and look at whether there is too much or too little service. Then we look specifically at whether or not the buoys are in the right place in the view of the experts there. In the case you are referring to, what happened was more a question of communication.

Having made the decision about what changes we think are appropriate in the buoyage system, we then make those changes and advise everybody of what we are intending to do before it happens. We use the standard approaches such as the Notices to Mariners, Notices to Shipping, and other marine publications.

What we are finding, Madam, is that in areas such as the Saint John River, where there is a high concentration of pleasure craft traffic but very little, if any, commercial traffic, the traditional methods we use for alerting people to changes in the system simply aren't adequate. The average pleasure boater who is going out on a Sunday afternoon does not receive Notices to Mariners or does not necessarily hear Notices to Shipping on the radio.

So in a number of the cases you referred to, where vessels went out on the river, it wasn't a question of the buoy being in the wrong place so much as the fact that they simply weren't aware we had moved it. They were thinking it was still in the old position. They hadn't received the information or been privy to the notices we had put out to what we call the ``marine public''.

I think we have most of that resolved now, but we certainly do need to do a better job of making sure we get the news out to the people who use those services directly, at each level.

Mrs. Wayne: I would just close with this, Mr. Chairman. I wrote a letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, inviting him to Saint John. We were going to take him up the river on a boat with a retired gentleman from the coast guard who has told me that the buoys are not in the right place. I wanted to get him there so that we could go aground together.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Wayne: Then I was sure to get them all fixed up. He's coming next Wednesday, I believe, but I don't think he's going up the river.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Turner: Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted if Mrs. Wayne could put us in contact with the retired coast guarder.

Mrs. Wayne: I could. He is a very fine gentleman. He didn't want any press. We weren't trying to get press. We were just trying to correct something.

The Chairman: Mr. Turner, I am sure at the end of the meeting you could probably spend a few minutes with Mrs. Wayne. If there is a problem that may relate to safety, I am sure your department would be quick to put that on a priority list and have it examined.

Mr. Turner: We will.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): I will pass to other members for now.

The Chairman: Jean.

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): I have just one question. Under the new act, does the minister gain any power, or more power, to designate protected areas - and I am talking about for fish species - in an effort to control breeding grounds? This is outside the 200-mile limit.

Dr. Parsons: The provisions with respect to marine protected areas in this act would only extend out to the edge of the exclusive economic zone, the 200-mile limit. It would not extend beyond that.

Mrs. Payne: So there is no provision in this act to perhaps allow the minister to obtain such powers.

Dr. Parsons: No. This act does not extend our jurisdiction beyond 200 miles. There is the continental shelf issue, which I have talked about.

Mrs. Payne: That is basically what I am referring to. I know the provisions as they exist right now. I guess what I'm saying is that this act really doesn't give us any more jurisdiction over that area.

Dr. Parsons: With respect to the protection of fisheries beyond 200 miles, there have in fact been a lot of initiatives over the last couple of years to try to address these issues, including the work in the Law of the Sea Convention with respect to straddling stocks and highly migratory species. There is now a draft convention on that, which the gentleman could elaborate on, and also through the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, which is responsible for fisheries management of the stocks beyond 200 miles in the regulatory.... Of course, you're all familiar with the turbot events of last spring, and what happened after that.

.1655

These issues all pertain to the issue of seeking more effective mechanisms for the protection of those resources beyond 200 miles. If you wish, either Mr. Rochon or Mr. Wiseman could elaborate.

Mrs. Payne: I would appreciate that.

The Chairman: Can I throw a question in on her question? We were observers at the Law of the Sea dealing with the highly migratory and straddling stocks. My understanding was that once that convention does get ratified over a period of time, would it not be a compelling case, Canada being the coastal state, if, for instance - and I think this is what Mrs. Payne is getting to - we declared a marine protected area in the area of the straddling stock of turbot, for instance? That would almost compel the other member states, under a ratified convention dealing with straddling and highly migratory stocks, to take efforts that are at least not any less than what the coastal state has taken to protect the stock for conservation.

Am I off on that? Because I think we had talked a little bit about this issue while we were down there.

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Chairman, you're not totally off.

The Chairman: I'm having a good day, then, if I'm not totally off.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Wiseman: It's a process of collaboration and consultation, as Dr. Parsons pointed out. In terms of the stocks beyond 200 miles, NAFO has the responsibility for managing those. If Canada were to determine there was a need for a marine protected area within 200 miles, and if it were pertaining to a stock rather than an area - and that's where we get into differences between the Fisheries Act and the Oceans Act - then under the convention you were referring to there is an obligation for the parties fishing outside and the regional fisheries management organization and the coastal state to collaborate.

If there was a determination that there should be a marine protected area that would straddle the 200-mile zone, that would then become a decision of both Canada's and the regional fisheries management organization's. With such a regime in place, then, no vessel should fish there whether they're members of that organization or from outside that organization.

The Chairman: It would be compelling if Canada took those steps with a ratified convention on highly migratory and straddling stocks. It adds to our case. We would have more clout to say that as the coastal state, we have taken these efforts, within our 200-mile limit, within our jurisdiction. If I'm not mistaken, there was language there that basically compelled the other member states and the regional body to take conservation measures that are at least complementary to it. It recognizes the pre-eminent rights and responsibilities of the coastal state.

Mr. Wiseman: In the UN draft convention it does talk about compatibility of decisions outside with those inside. The NAFO convention talks about consistency of decisions outside being consistent with those taken inside.

So it is covered in those conventions, but the fisheries minister cannot, on his own, make a decision to have a marine protected area beyond 200 miles.

The Chairman: Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells (South Shore): I have just a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.

I found the materials quite helpful. This is pretty good stuff. I hope we don't get it after every meeting now, because it might take a bit of our time.

Is there anywhere in the material an outline of the Law of the Sea provisions that are now being incorporated into this Oceans Act?

Dr. Parsons: No, I don't think there's any detail on that, but there might be -

Mr. Wells: I know there are bits and pieces throughout.

Dr. Parsons: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Wells: It would be nice if we could extrapolate what is coming out of the Law of the Sea Convention and what we're now putting into our own legislation. It would be helpful to me if that were separated here, if that's not a difficult task.

Dr. Parsons: We could do that. The major provisions are the incorporation of these maritime zones - the contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, the provisions relating to the continental shelf, and so on.

Mr. Wells: I may have picked them all up in reviewing it. I just want to make sure I haven't missed something.

Dr. Parsons: We could provide you with a piece on that.

Mr. Wells: I had just two questions as I went through the booklet you - or somebody - prepared.

.1700

In part I, Canada's maritime zones, you define the four zones and the continental shelf. I believe the only thing that's missing is, when you say whichever is greater...but there's a maximum there.

Dr. Parsons: Yes.

Mr. Wells: So it's not whichever is the greater of the two.

Dr. Parsons: My understanding is that it's a maximum distance of 350 miles. For example, off Newfoundland, the continental shelf -

Mr. Wells: I was just trying to make sure so that when we go back and read the material -

Dr. Parsons: This is highly summarized. I think it's covered in the deck I passed around today, but you're right that it's a highly summarized version.

Mr. Wells: I was confused by something on page 2 of the questions and answers. At the end it says that progress has been made on the development of an international agreement to protect these stocks. Which agreement are you referring to?

Dr. Parsons: Are you dealing with the question of beyond 200 miles?

Mr. Wells: Yes.

Dr. Parsons: This is in fact what Mr. Wiseman was just talking about, which is the highly migratory species and straddling stocks convention.

Mr. Wells: Has that agreement not been reached? I thought it was concluded.

Dr. Parsons: Yes.

Mr. Wells: It says progress has been made. Not only has progress been made, it's been concluded.

Dr. Parsons: In August there was agreement at the UN on this convention. There is a signature process and a ratification process beyond that, which could take some considerable time.

Mr. Wells: You confused me by the wording that says progress has been made.

Dr. Parsons: I apologize.

Mr. Wells: It sounds as though it's ongoing. So that is the same agreement we're referring to.

Dr. Parsons: Yes, it could have been more specific. It could have said that -

Mr. Wells: I thought I might be missing something, that's all.

Mr. Scott: When Mr. Rochon was speaking, he touched on a subject that was near and dear to my heart, so I thought I would jump in with one more question.

You talked about international boundary disputes or border disputes. Do you know basically how many international marine boundary disputes Canada has at the present time, which stage of resolve they're at, and how this bill may affect that?

Mr. Rochon: Certainly I can try to answer that.

On the west coast we have a boundary dispute in Dixon Entrance and we have a boundary dispute in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Both disputes are with the United States of America. In the Beaufort we have a dispute with the United States, and we have another dispute with the United States in the Gulf of Maine. These are long-standing disputes; there are no negotiations currently on any of these disputes.

There is a dispute in the Lincoln Sea with Denmark, a dispute between Ellesmere Island and Greenland over Hans Island.

I believe that's all we've got. There are no negotiations with Denmark on those issues.

Mr. Scott: I'm a little disappointed to hear you talk about the A-B line as being a boundary dispute, because it was my understanding that was resolved in 1903.

Mr. Rochon: That's also the Government of Canada's understanding, but it is not the Government of the United States' understanding.

Mr. Scott: I would suggest, with all respect, that we don't call it a dispute. The Americans can call it whatever they like, but it's established in the country.

If we start calling it a dispute, it makes our case weaker.

The Chairman: We'll get this stricken from the record. The word ``dispute'' won't be allowed in the last five minutes, in case anybody reads the transcript.

Mr. Scott, is there anything else?

Mr. Scott: That's all.

The Chairman: I think this is a good bill. I think the framework is great, and I think it's going in the right direction. We have all kinds of support from a lot of organizations, from NGOs, some provincial governments, etc. Everybody seems to be happy, but I'm not happy because I'm not quite sure that this bill goes far enough.

.1705

I've been around long enough in various hats, as a member of Parliament, as an assistant to the senators, that I know it's very seldom you get to revisit a piece of legislation. I know that if you're going to get House time, you might as well do it right when you get it.

Nobody is going to answer this, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Is this the original bill? You guys come forward and say, Minister, here's the bill that's going to make you a star; you'll be remembered as the minister who came in, when all others failed, with an Oceans Act. I don't think this is the bill you first came in with. It's probably substantially different because of the necessity of compromise at the cabinet table when you deal with trying to take anything from any minister, even in a time of fiscal restraint and program review and all that.

What are the areas in the proposed act specifically related to the environment that the department would think it wise for us to examine the advisability of transferring over to the act? I'll bet nobody is going to answer that.

Dr. Parsons: We always answer, Mr. Chairman, but it may not be satisfactory.

The Chairman: First of all, is this bill strong enough, or are there improvements that you think this committee might be able to look at through its deliberations? We usually get legislation and you bureaucrats sit there and tell us it's a perfect piece of legislation. On the government side they're told it's the best piece of legislation, and then on the opposition they say it sucks. Then nothing really happens, it goes back to the House and it's all the numbers.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I didn't hear Mr. Scott say that.

The Chairman: No, no, I didn't say that.

My question is this: in your view, is there work that this committee can do to strengthen the bill?

Dr. Parsons: Absolutely.

The Chairman: So you...?

Dr. Parsons: The mere fact that the bill is before the committee for review is -

The Chairman: Do you want to be assigned to scrutiny and regulations too?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Dr. Parsons: It's an assumption that through that process there can be improvements to the legislation.

Coming indirectly to your point, of course I realize you're not asking me to divulge anything I might know -

The Chairman: State secrets? No, I'd never do that.

Dr. Parsons: - discussions or anything of that nature. Questions were already raised by Mr. Scott about environmental issues and how the proposed Oceans Act relates to those. I think I answered that question when I referred to the ongoing discussions with respect to potential changes.

The Chairman: You were very forthcoming there and you may live to regret it, but I hope not.

On the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, part VI, which is ocean disposal, it seems to me that if we're going to have an act with any teeth, we have to have very clear lines of authority in some areas. In some areas, I guess, it's okay to compel individuals to talk to each other, because that's what it does in a lot of other areas. It says the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans shall be the lead guide to make people sit down and talk.

I'm not sure that some of the language in the bill is strong enough or compelling enough to cause those things to happen. People who usually get into this business and end up at the cabinet table are usually very strong-willed individuals. It's one thing to say ``consult'', but it's another thing to say ``you must consult'', and that if a minister starts a process, other ministers or other departments must work with that initiative.

With things like the ocean disposal, surely to goodness if you're going to have a new Oceans Act, and it talks about conservation and ecosystems and all that stuff, shouldn't the minister or the department have line responsibility for something like legislation dealing with ocean disposal?

There are two other pieces I'd look at. One is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. That deals with the control of land-based sources of pollution, offshore oil and gas, toxics. That stuff is really important. Where I grew up, in New Waterford, we didn't have a landfill. You just dumped everything over the cliff into the ocean. That's what you did. After a storm, if you were careful, you could pick your way between rusted-out parts of auto bodies and go swimming in the ocean. We did that for a long time. Some of that stuff is still going in there.

.1710

Are they the types of things we should be looking at and examining and recommending that they go over to this bill? Are they the types of things?

Dr. Parsons: Well, the matter you're referring to is the prerogative of ministers and the Prime Minister with respect to machinery of government.

The question certainly has been discussed as to whether or not ocean disposal should or should not be part of the Oceans Act. That's no secret. In fact, it's publicly known.

The Chairman: I realize that.

Dr. Parsons: There was, as I said, a memorandum of intent between deputy ministers - a public document actually - which did talk about that as a possible option. Ministers, in their wisdom, as this bill has gone forward, have decided that was not appropriate at that particular point.

The Chairman: That was at their level. At our level we're at a very different part of the process, and I'm just trying to get some of your expert advice. We don't want to waste a lot of time, but if there are some areas that may be advisable...we should do it.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Maybe I can phrase the question differently, Mr. Chairman.

In terms of ocean disposal, your staff would not object to expanding some of the responsibility to include ocean disposal. Is it correct that you would not object to that?

Dr. Parsons: Now you're really trying to put me on the spot.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Dr. Parsons: I think I've answered the question.

Mr. Dhaliwal: You wouldn't object to it.

The Chairman: No, he wouldn't object.

There's one other area that deals with it - and I don't know these acts or these pieces of legislation - which is the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. It's not included in the Canada Oceans Act. The responsible minister is still the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. Does anybody know anything about that particular act? It would seem to me that one of the most fragile ecosystems that we have in the marine environment is in the Arctic.

I get worried when I see departments whose primary business is something other than what we're doing here today. I worry because when staff resources are cut, when decisions have to be made as to whether or not you continue to fund your core program and activity or some of these other peripheral programs, no matter how important it is that non-core activities get done, they're the ones that are the first to go.

I think one of the hopes of people championing an oceans act was that there would be a sharp edge to the sword, that it would be consolidated and seen in its entirety in a department that had those core responsibilities.

What does the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act do as it relates to oceans? I would like to get it in my head whether or not we should call the deputy minister from that department and ask him why he thinks he should keep that.

Dr. Parsons: I think Mr. Turner, with his background in transport and in dealing with some of its provisions, is well equipped to deal with that particular question.

I would make one other comment. In the material you've been given recently - I referred at the beginning to these three binders, one of which was the one that Mr. Wells was referring to - one binder had the legislation directly dealing with the Canada Oceans Act. It was in fact touched on in the Oceans Act.

There was a third one that was a response to an earlier request from the committee, which was other legislation that in some way related to oceans. The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act is in that package, the Navigable -

The Chairman: Have you made any comment on it?

Dr. Parsons: No, no.

The Chairman: I'm asking for your comment.

Dr. Parsons: The Navigable Waters Protection Act, for example, is also in there.

The Chairman: Yes, the act is in there, but there's no comment as to why it's still where it's at.

Dr. Parsons: You'll get the comment now.

Mr. Turner: The AWPPA, as it's known, is a particularly complex piece of legislation inasmuch as it has three different ministers involved. That of course makes it all the more difficult to reach agreement on how it should best be managed.

The Chairman: It probably took them six years to figure out what acronym to call it.

Mr. Turner: It's possible.

There are particular parts of the act that are of interest and concern to the coast guard within DFO, as there are to the Department of Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and EMR or NRCan as it's now called, Natural Resources Canada.

The part we deal with particularly relates to the movement of ships through Arctic waters. There's a particular control regime, together with sets of standards with respect to ship construction and design.

That portion of the AWPPA and its regulations are the responsibility of the Minister of Transport at the present time. There are discussions still under way between the departments, particularly between DFO and the Department of Transport, regarding the future administration of sections of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and this specific part referring to ship movements through the Arctic, and between Transport and DFO regarding the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In both cases those discussions had not proceeded to the point where final decisions had been made by ministers in time to make this bill, if I could put it that way.

.1715

One reaches a point in terms of the scheduling for legislation where you have to say you've done as much as you can up to this point and you now must bring it forward to ministers and to Parliament - after cabinet, of course.

Frankly, in these two particular cases there is more work yet to be done.

The Chairman: Yes, but how much work would there be, Mike? This has been around for a long time. This is an important bill. I'm not trying to be critical. Maybe the politicians have slowed it down, or maybe the bureaucrats, or God knows who, but this is an important, ground-breaking piece of legislation. We're just starting to get into this and there are some obvious areas where agreement should be expected to be reasonably quick.

Read the preamble, the purpose of the bill. The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the stuff you've given us, indicates that there are regulations in there controlling the deposit of waste into the Arctic Ocean. Well, if that's the case, I would certainly think it's something that should be concluded rather quickly.

I'm not going to ask you to comment on that, but these are two or three areas we've asked about and have gotten some information that there is, or has been, ongoing discussions; there have been discussions; there have been agreements that have been sort of undone; and there are ongoing talks. Can anybody give our committee some sense of which of these pieces of legislation, (a) there has been discussion on that has not resulted in an agreement to transfer or (b) there are ongoing discussions about? That would help us a great deal. Otherwise, we're going to have to get people in for every one of these acts.

Mr. Turner: With respect to the one we were just discussing, as I mentioned, the AWPPA with regard to the ship control aspects and standards, there is discussion under way now. With regard to the Arctic dumping provisions, this is an issue between DOE and DFO. I believe there's been discussion. On the Navigable Waters Protection Act, I believe we're quite close to an agreement on what should be done with that piece of legislation.

The Chairman: I'm still confused. You said the purpose of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act was the regulations controlling the deposit of waste.

Mr. Turner: It's actually considerably more extensive than that. For example, the portion we're particularly concerned with in terms of the coast guard addresses the question of the deposit of waste in the sense of marine pollution from ships, or ship-sourced pollution. To do that, there's a comprehensive regulatory system with respect to the design and construction and operation of ships in Arctic waters.

So it becomes quite a complex matter where shipping is in fact being regulated in all its aspects. There's a unique regime in the Arctic waters to do that. The ocean dumping portion is in fact covered by a separate part of the act with regard to separate sets of regulations.

The Chairman: But of the same act.

Mr. Turner: Yes.

The Chairman: So there are two sets of concurrent negotiations going on, one with respect to your area of primary interest and the other with respect to the environmental aspect.

Mr. Turner: I can only speak to the one with regard to the ship aspect. I believe discussions on Arctic environment in a general sense have been held elsewhere with DFO, but I don't think they focused on that specific piece of legislation to which you're referring.

Dr. Parsons: If I may, Mr. Chairman, just to deal with the more general part of your question, I'll come back specifically to ocean disposal just to clarify the situation. There were discussions about whether or not part VI of CEPA should be incorporated in the Oceans Act. That's not a secret at all. I'm not revealing any secret there.

Those discussions were part of a complex set of negotiations between two departments. There were a lot of other issues as well in terms of the potential rationalization of responsibilities, for example, between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans where there were marine aspects - one of which was that.

There were also freshwater aspects where there was the question of potential delegation of habitat management responsibilities to inland provinces and potential transfer of some freshwater science programs to the Department of the Environment. Another aspect with respect to the marine was the possible transfer of a shellfish monitoring program, also in the Department of the Environment, to DFO.

.1720

There was at one point a memorandum of intent between the two deputy ministers, an expression of intent to move in this direction, but that was subject to negotiations that were to occur. Those negotiations have been long and protracted, and the marriage has not been consummated.

The Chairman: Maybe we can be matchmakers and marriage counsellors and get some of these people in and find out why it hasn't been done and maybe recommend that it should be done.

Are there any other questions? That's it?

Who from the department is going to be here for hearings, for when questions arise? I always like to have somebody here so that we don't have to wait four or five days and send over a formal note. Who from the department is going to be here monitoring?

Dr. Parsons: We will have perhaps two or three people available.

The Chairman: Can they identify themselves when they come in so that they're not stuck in the back of the room and we don't know who they are? There may be some questions that arise when we hear other witnesses, and it's always a lot easier if we can point to somebody at the back and get them to pull up to the side. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be opposed to having them sit at one side of the table here. If an issue comes up and they have information we need, they're able to give it to us at that time.

Dr. Parsons: We will certainly commit to that and ensure that there are people here at all times during your hearings. Thank you for the invitation.

The Chairman: Thanks for the briefing notes. They were very good, although we had to read them very late last night. They were very good and helped us a great deal. Thank you very much.

On another matter, committee members, tomorrow we have Mr. Rowat, the deputy minister, at 9 a.m. The afternoon session we had been planning is not able to take place. At this point we are still trying to line up some witnesses, so there will be no hearings tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Scott, we're still getting in some numbers with respect to the cost of setting up a teleconference. I've been informed by the clerk and Ms Payne that we will probably have to send a staffer out there to set up the teleconference, and that requires a consent to travel. Once he gets his numbers together and we look at the logistics, we may have to seek consent from the House to send that person to each coast to set it up at the other end. I'll talk to you tomorrow when we get some more numbers.

Mr. Scott: Okay. I'd like to talk to you anyway about the potential witness list.

The Chairman: We stand adjourned.