[English]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 15, 2001
• 0937
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): The meeting resumes, and I would like to apologize to the officials. We had to finish some items of business.
I would like to welcome the officials from Parks Canada Agency, who will give us a briefing. It's a briefing session on national marine conservation areas of Canada. We have with us Mr. Tom Lee, the Chief Executive Officer of Parks Canada Agency;
[Translation]
Mr. Bruce Amos, Director General, National Parks Directorate; Ms. Susan Katz, Director, Legislation and Policy Branch;
[English]
and Mrs. Daphne Porter, the legal counsel.
Mr. Lee, the floor is yours.
Mr. Lee, I should point out that Bill C-10 has not been referred to the committee, so this is a general information session, which we're allowed to do under Standing Order 108(2).
Mr. Tom Lee (Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency): Thank you very much.
I would like this morning to take you broadly through the bill. We have passed out a deck that looks like this, and I will speak to that deck.
First of all, I might say that the bill you have before you is a bill that has been before committee and before the House, and as a result has accommodated already various changes that have been proposed by the committee—substantive changes that greatly improve the bill from its original presentation.
By way of introduction, Parks Canada, on behalf of the federal government, is responsible for a family of protected heritage areas, of which national marine conservation areas are one. The others are national parks, national historic sites, the historic canals, and the Canadian heritage rivers—and specifically those rivers that fall within the national parks system.
These protected areas are set aside to protect both natural and cultural heritage and are dedicated to fostering public understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment of these special places. In this respect, Parks Canada is unique among federal government departments and, in addition to conservation roles, plays this major role of highlighting those values that are associated with these special places and presenting these to Canadians.
The key features of a national marine conservation area are noted on page 3. Perhaps the most important thing to understand is that the national marine conservation areas are not national parks in water. They're substantively different. The national parks system is set aside on a full conservation-preservation principle. Resource uses of any commercial nature are not permitted in national parks. The only actual resource “extraction” that takes place is sports fishing, and so these national parks systems are fully protected.
• 0940
The national marine conservation area is different in
the sense that it has protected areas, but it is
fundamentally a sustainable resource-use situation
where a variety of activities are permitted as long as
they are carried out in a way that balances protection
and sustainability.
A third aspect of marine conservation areas that make them distinct from the national parks and historic sites is that they are managed in concert with a number of other jurisdictions, specifically the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport, because there are activities that take place within the national marine conservation areas that are overlapping and complementary to the purpose for which these areas are set aside.
In the process of developing this bill, there were quite wide-ranging public consultations that took place. And in the presentation of the bill before committee, there were a variety of suggestions made for improving and underlining the significance of having the support of local people. A key element of this has involved the placing in legislation of a mandatory advisory committee, which is a unique element for these particular areas and is not replicated in the national parks systems.
Finally, as I indicated earlier, in terms of Parks Canada's particular role here, these places are seen as places of Canadian heritage—outstanding examples of Canada that are set aside and managed and are accessible to Canadians for recreation, for tourism, and for learning.
The legislation as outlined contains two major elements. One is the process of establishment, and the second covers the aspects of administration. In terms of establishment, marine conservation areas would be established on the Great Lakes and in tidal waters out to the 200-nautical-mile limit. The legislation requires federal ownership of the seabed. It provides for establishment of reserves where there may be in existence outstanding land claims. It details the process of consultation, and it provides for the establishment of these areas through an OIC process and the scrutiny of Parliament.
There are four major elements in terms of administration, and these are driven through management plans. Provisions are made for management advisory committees. The management plans must outline the primary purpose for which these places are established. There are provisions for cooperative management in conjunction with both the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport, and there is a requirement that the management plans be tabled in Parliament.
There is one major prohibition in the bill, and that is a prohibition against extraction of non-renewable resources. There are also provisions for prohibition, if necessary, of disposal of environmentally damaging substances at sea.
The legislation provides for a range of regulation-making authority, fundamentally filling in gaps in other statutes. The substantive difference that occurs in this is that the authorities that would be granted to Parks Canada are not covered in legislation provided to other organizations operating on the Great Lakes and oceans specifically the provision for protection of cultural resources, the provisions for visitor safety, the establishment of zones, and control of activities within those zones.
• 0945
The enforcement provisions of this bill are similar to
other environmental statutes, including the National
Parks Act, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act,
the Oceans Act, the Canada Wildlife Act.
While this bill is being presented to Parliament as a comprehensive framework bill, it is, in fact, not a new idea. There is a legislative and policy history associated with marine conservation areas. There are areas established internationally, in various other countries around the world. There is an international resolution supporting the creation of marine conservation areas from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
The policy history in Canada dates from the mid-1980s, the first marine policy, and there was a detailed national conservation area policy in 1994. There is an overall systems framework, a direction, which would provide for the creation ultimately of 29 such areas. There has been announced by the Prime Minister a commitment to proceed with the establishment of this legislation and the establishment of national marine conservation areas. There has been widespread national consultation on both the policy and the bills. The bill was originally tabled in 1998 as Bill C-48 and subsequently modified.
When this bill was before the House, there were some 16 witnesses, representing various organizations, who made presentations to this committee, and this current Bill C-10 includes all amendments made at standing committee, as well as those approved at report stage.
The key additions to this bill made through standing committee were as follows. One was the provision of a non-derogation clause, to ensure that there was clarity and no ambiguity as to the fact that this bill would have no impact at all on the constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights existing independently of any act of Parliament. That has been added for certainty.
The second major addition to this bill is in response to concerns raised in both the House and in committee that there would be a concurrence with the provincial jurisdictions. If a province owns a seabed or otherwise has responsibility for resources in a proposed national marine conservation area, an agreement will be required with the province to establish the national marine conservation area and to make the appropriate resource arrangements with the federal government.
The third major addition to the bill has to do with interim management plans. There was a provision in the bill that would have seen up to five years from the area's being established to prepare the first management plan. It was felt by committee members that we needed to be more proactive on that, that there needed to be greater certainty about why this area was being established. So there was a provision introduced through the bill that when a new proposal comes before Parliament, there should be an interim management plan accompanying it, which becomes the key directional document for the use and management of that area.
Finally, the bill was modified to clarify the nature of zoning, and it now contains two key provisions. One is that there will be areas zoned and dedicated for multiple use, where ecologically sustainable uses are encouraged, and zones that are fully protected, which, for example, might include critical spawning grounds, cultural sites, whale-calving areas, or scientific research locations.
• 0950
There have been a number of questions raised in the
House and the committee along the following lines, and
varied viewpoints on the answers to these
questions.
There have been proposals that the bill should be more rigorous in terms of the types of activities it prohibits. It is our feeling that the bill contains the provision for prohibitions, but does so in a flexible manner through regulation. As we establish these areas, we need to be always conscious of the different needs of local people, the different situations that exist throughout Canada. We need to have a bill that can accommodate those needs where necessary and where those needs are consistent with the purpose for which the area has been established. We believe this bill provides mechanisms for managing that situation in a positive way.
As I indicated earlier, there's sometimes confusion between national parks and national marine conservation areas. We have heard proposals to add provisions similar to the National Parks Act in terms of definition and application of ecological integrity.
As I indicated, the situations are different. Ecological integrity as defined and practised in national parks forbids commercial use of resources. The application of ecological balance in a sustainable use area where commercial extraction of resources is taking place in certain zones is different from national parks.
We have had questions about the relationship to other federal programs, specifically those of wildlife areas in the Department of the Environment and the provisions provided to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under the Oceans Act. Both of these parties also contain the ability under certain conditions to establish protected areas. The protected areas, however, are not selected on the same basis as the national marine conservation area system and are not managed in the same way. The protected areas under the Oceans Act and the Canada Wildlife Act are very much protected wildlife areas and protected special features.
In the case of the national marine conservation areas, these are clearly national heritage areas containing representative examples of the natural conditions in our oceans and in our Great Lakes and, as I indicated earlier, are managed in both a cultural context for Canadians and in the context of use and enjoyment, and in that sense complement the efforts of other parties.
I have dealt with the modifications on questions that indicated there was concern about intruding on provincial jurisdiction. There would be no intrusion on provincial jurisdiction under this bill. Where provincial jurisdiction is involved, there is a requirement now in the bill for an agreement with the province involved.
We are aware—and we and our minister have been questioned on whether or not we should proceed with the creation of marine conservation areas in Canada, given that we have a lot to do in the national parks system and we have some catching up to do. This is a fair question, but I would say that Parks Canada, compared to the national parks system, where it is an international leader, is actually falling behind the leading jurisdictions in other countries, and the international undertakings to protect these areas around the world are not being fulfilled at this time.
• 0955
We have to take a very long-range view of this. In
1930, when the first National Parks Act was created,
people might have had the same questions
as to whether or not, as a nation, we should be
proceeding to establish a framework of national parks.
We believe this is a necessary step and a
long-term step.
I have pointed out that the bill has been modified to ensure a process of consultation, including management advisory boards for these areas, and finally I would say that in terms of where we're going, we have made progress in establishing national marine conservation areas. There are federal-provincial agreements in place for Fathom Five and the Gwaii Haanas reserve. We have been proceeding with feasibility studies in Lake Superior and the southern Strait of Georgia. We have passed the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, and we are asking the committee to consider a single piece of legislation that can encompass the majority of the legislative requirements in these areas, as we do under the National Parks Act, as opposed to having to use individual bills, individual pieces of legislation, every time we bring one of these areas forward.
In conclusion, we believe the national marine conservation area system provides for the protection of representative examples of Canada's marine heritage. We believe framework legislation is the appropriate way to deal with these. We have pointed out that Bill C-10 is not the original Bill C-48 that appeared before committee; it includes substantive and meaningful changes made by the committee. We believe the bill strikes the proper balance between protection and use, and we believe there is a strong... not just protection but provision for involvement of the public at every stage in both the creation and management of a marine conservation area.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee.
Are there any questions? Ms. Gallant.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): First of all, I'd like to thank the officials from Parks Canada for being here today, and I direct my questions to Mr. Lee.
Canadians are very concerned about the health and safety dispute that you are currently engaged in with your employees in the national parks. Bill C-10 would see the creation of 29 new marine conservation areas in Canada, and the ability of Parks Canada to effectively manage those areas is paramount.
Yesterday in the House, your minister stated that in the current health and safety dispute with your park wardens, the government was following your recommendations as the chief operating officer of Parks Canada.
Since 1993, you have had evidence from three separate reports—the Quebec study, Rescue 3, and the Canadian Wildlife Federation report—and in September 1999, the Victoria committee, all overwhelmingly recommending the issuing of side arms to park wardens.
So my first question is, in the face of all the evidence, where is your evidence that park wardens should be carrying shotguns instead, which is what you're currently implementing?
The next area I'd like to direct your attention to is the comment your minister made to the House of Commons in which she said the chief operating officer of Parks Canada understood that if we want to have police enforcement in the national parks, it should be done by police.
The problem isn't who's going to be enforcing the Criminal Code of Canada, it's who is going to be enforcing the National Parks Act. The HRDC ruling earlier this year directed you to pull your park wardens off the job over the issue of protective safety equipment, and a story in the Calgary Herald this past weekend quoted the RCMP as saying that they had no intention of enforcing the Parks Act.
• 1000
So obviously,
you're not opposed to arming the park wardens because,
as we speak, the park wardens are in classrooms right
now learning how to use shotguns, of which you directed
Parks Canada to purchase tens of thousands of dollars.
The problem you have seems to be with the issue of sidearms. So my second question is, Mr. Lee, have you approved this interim direction to issue the shotguns with HRDC, and then, what happens to the pending final appeal of that HRDC ruling, which you've appealed? Are you then directed to issue sidearms to park wardens to fulfil the responsibilities under the National Parks Act? If so, what would happen then?
How's my time?
The Chair: You have just a little bit.
Mr. Tom Lee: Yes. In response to the first question that dealt with the three reports, I have received three reports on the issue of safety of wardens. There were two key questions that those reports did not answer, and those items were as follows. One, they did not indicate, through the history of the warden service, that there was any indication and history of continued damage—what we call grievous bodily harm—that occurred to these people as a result of their activities.
The second element that was not contained in those reports—and this is a key element—was the answer to a question I was looking for, which was an indication of the degree to which a warden carrying a gun would be safer than if they were not carrying a sidearm. That is the condition of those three reports.
I would indicate also that the review we conducted did indicate that, over time and for reasons that were not perhaps understood as we moved through that time, the warden service was becoming increasingly implicated in carrying out policing activities, which is not the intention for which the service was created. It was intended to create a method for protection of resources and protection of public safety, but not to be fully engaged on matters, for example, covered comprehensively in the Criminal Code.
The second question was, who is going to do resource management? As the member indicated, I am acting under a direction under the Canada Labour Code with respect to officer safety. Basically, I was directed, on one day's notice, to take the entire warden service out of the law enforcement business. That's a direction I had to carry out under the law.
Subsequent to that, we have been trying to put in place a system of protection for the interim period, while we are conducting an appeal, which would provide for the re-engagement of the warden service in the resource management functions. I have a proposal before the safety officer at this point in time and am waiting for a response from him as to whether the interim measures I am proposing are substantively in compliance with his direction. I have not yet received an answer to that, but I am expecting one.
If that condition is met, then there is provision for substantive re-engagement of the warden service in the enforcement activities related to resource management and the provision, while the appeal proceeds, of support from the RCMP in both the normal Criminal Code peacekeeping activities as well as, where necessary, some of the possibly more dangerous resource conservation issues.
• 1005
As the member indicated, I have initiated an appeal of
the officers' decision. I am simply not convinced that all the
conditions our warden services encounter in the
national park are situations that can only be mitigated
by the carrying of a sidearm. One of the more extreme
examples raised is that a warden may be in danger or at
risk when they ask somebody to put a dog back on a
leash. That's possible, in the extreme. It's a
hypothetical situation. But dogcatchers in cities
don't carry sidearms, nor do people who go around
ticketing cars, and so on. There's always some degree
of risk in an enforcement activity, because you don't
always know what you're going to encounter. My job
is to provide my staff with the training and the tools
to recognize and manage those situations to the fullest
degree possible, and also to utilize, wherever
possible, the proper policing forces in the country to
carry out activities that really are not part of the
management of the national parks system.
[Translation]
The Chair: Ms. Gagnon.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, PQ): Mr. Lee, some witnesses have raised the issue of duplication and overlap in the federal administration if Bill C-10 is adopted. I believe you also mentioned this fact in committee. We've even heard about the potential for certain inconsistencies in departmental procedures. Take, for instance, Environment Canada and another department the name of which I cannot recall. If Bill C-10 is adopted and marine conservation areas are established under the jurisdiction of Heritage Canada, or in this case, Parks Canada, there could be a problem in terms of operating effectively. Do you agree that there is a potential problem?
Mr. Tom Lee: I realize that there could be duplication in certain areas. I don't believe Environment Canada will encounter any problems, however. A committee composed of representatives of Environment Canada, Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans has been struck and I don't believe there have been any problems.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You expressed a number of reservations, three I believe - I had to step out for a moment, so I don't know if there were others - over the fact that the bill could be more rigorous about specifying which type of activity can be carried out within these marine areas. Can you give us some concrete examples of the type of activities that might be conducted and that perhaps were not considered in the draft legislation?
Mr. Tom Lee: I can give you one example. Some people feel, for example, that there is no need for
[English]
bottom dragging, bottom fishing—it's a particular example of a type of fishing.
[Translation]
In my opinion, we can look to the regulations and there is no need for a provision in the bill.
• 1010
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understood you clearly. Is there a quota in place on bottom fishing or is...
The Chair: It's a type of fishing.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Oh, I see.
[English]
The Chair: I think you were referring to trawlers that scour the bottom of the ocean.
[Translation]
It's a method of fishing.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Using trawlers.
The Chair: Trawlers comb bottom waters for fish.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I understand.
Therefore, it's clear that generally speaking, the bill could be difficult to administer in a way that would accommodate the positions of various departments on environmental, wildlife and plant issues.
You also indicated that some protected areas are not managed in the same way or viewed in the same light as national parks. Speaking of national parks management, we also heard about the problems encountered with protected environmental areas, among other things. The ecosystems of several areas are apparently threatened.
In short, concerns have been expressed about effective management, overlap and duplication and the vision of certain departments with respect to ecosystem protection. You too have expressed certain reservations about these matters.
Mr. Tom Lee: I've stated that in my opinion, this is not a problem because the same thing is happening everywhere on earth. According to Environment Canada, our national parks are home to certain endangered species and the department is very concerned about endangered species. So too is Parks Canada. This is not a case of duplication, but rather an opportunity for cooperation.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have one final question concerning jurisdictions. You seem to feel that some jurisdictional conflicts could arise. For example, some land claims issues could arise if the federal government wanted to designate a marine conservation area and claim ownership of that area. What kind of jurisdictional problems are we likely to encounter in other provinces?
You can answer in English, since we have interpreters. That may be easier for you.
Mr. Bruce Amos (Director General, National Parks Directorate, Parks Canada Agency): I'm not sure I understood the question correctly, but with respect to provincial jurisdiction, it's clear in the bill that in cases where the seabed...
The Chair: Go on.
Mr. Bruce Amos: ...where the seabed is owned by a province, it is essential, according to the bill, that an agreement be reached and signed by the province and the federal government before the establishment of a marine conservation area can be proposed to Parliament.
There are different things to consider in the case of reserves, marine areas and national parks. The bill's provisions are similar to those contained in the National Parks Act. In the case of aboriginal land claims not settled by treaties or other general agreements, the bill proposes, just as the National Parks Act does, that marine conservation areas be designated as “reserves”. It is stated very clearly that these reserves would maintain their special status until such time as outstanding claims are settled under the Parliament of Canada Act. At that point, these so-called “reserves” would officially become marine conservation areas and the relevant agreements would include the terms for any claims settlements. This arrangement would acknowledge situations where aboriginal land claims have not been settled and confirmed under the Parliament of Canada Act.
• 1015
The Chair: Are there any questions?
[English]
Are there questions on the Liberal side?
[Translation]
I'll come back to you, Ms. Gagnon.
Mr. Harvey.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, you had the opportunity to follow at the time developments with respect to the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park. I'd like to thank your department's officials who worked very hard on this initiative and who demonstrated infinite patience in hammering out an agreement to establish this park. It took 130 years to designate the Saguenay fjord as a national park. As far back as 1984, I found the situation rather ridiculous. Park workers suggested to me at the time that a national park be created within the Saguenay fjord. Over the previous decades, negotiations with the Quebec government had always ended in failure. The going had always been extremely difficult.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming and to ask them if they feel the establishment of these areas within the marine park will have any kind of impact. Also - and this will be my final comment - in my opinion, the fact that ownership rights must be transferred for the formal creation of new areas will not pose a problem for other provinces. However, I am concerned that this requirement could seriously compromise Canadian initiative in Quebec. My question to you is this: is there some way to get around this ownership transfer provision?
Mr. Bruce Amos: First of all, in terms of potential impact, on behalf of Parks Canada, I appreciate the Member's comments. It's been a long process, one that finally culminated in success. I'm sure I speak not only for Parks Canada, but for all people in the region who worked very hard for many years to bring the dream of a marine park to fruition.
The impact will certainly be felt in terms of marine resource conservation. This initiative will provide an opportunity to demonstrate to the public at large the importance of marine resources and the impact we can have on our rivers and oceans and to help people understand this component of our Canadian heritage. The benefits are not only educational, from a conservation standpoint, but economic as well. The Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park is one early sign of the positive impact such initiatives have on neighbouring communities.
Your second question may be somewhat more difficult to answer. It's not easy to speculate as to the kind of effort that will be required in future to achieve cooperation between the federal and Quebec governments. The province of Quebec is surrounded by several marine areas. In some natural regions, the seabed is clearly owned by the federal government. The only instance where ownership is clearly in the hands of the province is the area that makes up the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park. Everyone agreed that Quebec owned the lower St. Lawrence and that's why we have special legislation to this effect. In the case of other marine areas surrounding Quebec, ownership isn't quite so clear-cut. Lawyers and both levels of government hold different opinions. It is clearly not the federal government's intention to impose a marine area in a region where ownership of the seabed hasn't been clearly established.
• 1020
This bill is critical in two respects: first, this type of
legislative measure is needed where the seabed in certain marine
areas is clearly owned by the federal government and second, it is
needed in cases where in the future, the province in question and
Canada might come to some kind of agreement over the establishment
of an area in which the seabed would come under federal
jurisdiction.
I'm not in a position to speculate about the future. It's never easy when our legal counsel disagree on who has jurisdiction over the seabed. The resolution passed in the case of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park is unique in that both levels of government agreed on the legal aspects.
[English]
The Chair: Mrs. Bulte.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): If I could just follow up on your answer, Mr. Amos, is it not true that whether there's a matter of jurisdiction or not, the act also provides for extensive consultation, and if the local communities don't want the marine park, it won't be created? Am I right?
Mr. Bruce Amos: Yes, the act requires consultation at every stage. It requires consultation in the process of establishing a new area. It requires that the government, when it's proposing an area to Parliament, table a report on those consultations in Parliament and report on any agreements that have been reached with other governments or other departments. It requires consultations in the preparation of a park management plan. It requires the establishment of a management advisory committee. There is a requirement for consultations on any regulation that might be put in place.
So at every stage, there is a requirement in the legislation for consultations.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Now theoretically, is it possible to, say, get through stage two, with everything being fine, and then actually abandon the establishment of a park, going through the process you're going through?
Mr. Bruce Amos: Yes, and we have.
Clearly, the position of Parks Canada and the Government of Canada, and indeed, governments going back some years, has been that the government does not establish national parks or national marine conservation areas without some clear indication of strong support from local communities and local interests. If that support is not there, there's no intention or desire to impose marine conservation on an area.
In fact, as some members may recall, when the previous bill was before the House, there was a proposal under discussion with communities in the Bonavista-Notre Dame Bays area of Newfoundland. The local advisory committee, after reviewing it in detail for some time, advised the governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador that they were not prepared to recommend it go ahead, and the proposal will not be proceeding. That's an example of exactly what you're saying.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I have another quick question.
I also understand from some of the work that's going on—correct me if I'm wrong—that industry as well is a key player in the establishment of these parks.
Mr. Bruce Amos: Absolutely, in a number of ways.
Where the seabed is in the jurisdiction of the federal government, the Canadian government's policy is to do an assessment of mineral and energy resources before any decision is made to establish such an area. So it's known if there's potential and boundary adjustments can be made or difficult decisions can be made with knowledge of the facts. That clearly brings into play the mineral sector and the energy sector.
The fishing industry in particular must be a key partner in the establishment of any marine conservation area. They must be key supporters before the area goes ahead.
• 1025
But other industries as well, those in the tourism
sector, have a strong interest in marine conservation
areas. Are they still going to have access? They're
interested in what controls might be put in place. And
they're interested in conservation, which most in the
tourism industry see as a key element in a sustainable
future for their industry.
Those are examples of some of the industries that would definitely be involved, not only in the process of considering whether to establish an area, which usually takes... in our business, five or six years would be very fast, from the time an area's identified to when an agreement might be struck. As Mr. Harvey understands, it can often take much longer.
So industry is a key partner in the establishment, in consultations before establishment, in the preparation of the management plan, and in the ongoing operations of the area.
The Chair: Mrs. Gallant and Mr. Harvey, I'll get back to you. That's the order: two, two, and then we'll get back to you.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Okay. Following up on the two key questions you're asking in those reports, grievous bodily harm was one of the points. Since 1993 we have had the fines increase from $500 to $250,000. The potential for violence has increased dramatically. At the same time, prices paid for animal body parts as well as for rare plants, insects, and fossils have increased significantly. Some are worth up to $50,000 and more on the black market.
Also, given that park wardens have literally been tied up at gunpoint and that provincial conservation officers as well as Department of Fisheries and Oceans officers are equipped with sidearms, while national park wardens are provided with soft body armour to protect them from bullets, how is it not justified yet that this type of protection is warranted for these officers as it is in the other departments?
Also, it was mentioned that you have been directed to completely take away the enforcing of any Criminal Code offences from the wardens. That means now that if an officer sees somebody entering a vehicle who is visibly drunk, they can't stop it. They can no longer stop a drunk husband from beating his wife in a park—which has happened, and they have intervened on those occasions.
My question right now deals with the $40 million that have been requested for the RCMP officers to patrol the national parks, which, coincidentally, happens to exactly match the $40 million the RCMP has been told to cut out of their proposed CPIC budget.
Considering that the cost to train and equip a limited number of park wardens to carry sidearms to engage in Criminal Code enforcement is millions less than calling in the RCMP, wouldn't it make more sense to direct those funds into—if the money has to be spent—the crumbling infrastructure that was referred to in January?
The Chair: Mrs. Gallant, I've allowed your questions because I think this committee has been completely wide open in the past and we haven't wanted to stick too much to rules, but this convocation here was clearly according to the standing orders on national marine conservation areas of Canada.
You've spent all your time questioning on wardens and guns. That's not what Mr. Lee came about. If you have a question on guns, put it in the House of Commons when we meet on national parks. It seems to me completely out of order that you've taken all the time to just dwell on guns.
I allowed it the first time. But the order of the day means something here. It says, “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), briefing session on national marine conservation areas of Canada”. So what has that to do with wardens and guns and husbands beating wives in the parks? I can't see it. I'll allow this thing because it's gone, but I tell you there will be no more questions on this because I think the officials have come here to talk to us about national marine conservation areas. This was the subject of the meeting.
• 1030
We can't just have a wide-open meeting where we can
question anything at all about the parks. The
whole object is to try to prepare ourselves for a bill
that relates to marine conservation areas, which is
going to come before the committee very soon.
I can assure you that when it does, I'm not going to allow questions on guns and wardens, because that is not the subject of the bill.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant: The point I was making, Mr. Chairman, is that if we can't enforce the National Parks Act right now, why are we going to spread the chaos to marine parks? We have to make sure the national parks are in order before we expand the responsibilities.
The Chair: You're talking about chaos in the parks. That is a pretty strong notion. I don't know about chaos in the parks.
Anyway, Mr. Lee, could you just answer that one? We'll have no more questions on this subject.
Mr. Tom Lee: There is no chaos occurring in the parks. The application of law enforcement in marine conservation areas would not, in my view, be an issue before committee in terms of proceeding with this bill.
The issue with respect to park wardens and safety is a provision under the Canada Labour Code. I have to follow that code, and I have to pursue the right answers through that code. Until I get clarification, through appeal or otherwise, on the interpretation and application of the law, it is my responsibility to pursue that as well as to provide interim protection.
I am seeking clarification through appeal so that this matter can be clarified and straightened out, and at the same time I have taken active steps through proposing an interim plan and through seeking the assistance of the RCMP to provide for protection until this matter is clarified.
The clarification of this matter is not a matter under either this act or the National Parks Act. It is a matter under the Canada Labour Code.
The Chair: Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lee, just a point of clarification... I'm new to the committee, so I perhaps don't quite understand everything that's being done, but the act as I understand it does not designate the specific regions. Is that correct?
Mr. Tom Lee: No.
Mr. Shawn Murphy: When I see your map, are these proposed regions, or... just what is the purpose of this map?
Mr. Tom Lee: That is a framework map, so that is the long-term direction. The regions are defined according to certain primary biological characteristics so that they encompass the various natural systems contained in the oceans and waters of the Great Lakes. Ultimately, there would be established... it would be desirable, and it's the objective, to establish one national marine conservation area in each of the regions. This is similar to the national parks system, which follows the same idea.
Mr. Shawn Murphy: Would that take in the whole region?
Mr. Tom Lee: No, no. It would take in a very small element of the region. I guess a good example would be Saguenay-St. Lawrence, where it takes in primarily the fjord and part of the river. Another good example would be Fathom Five. The region encompasses that entire Great Lake, but the actual marine conservation area encompasses—I don't know how many square miles—maybe 100 square miles or something of that nature.
Mr. Shawn Murphy: Just to review what you're saying, your objective is to have a marine conservation area in each of the 29 regions, but the marine conservation area would be a very small, designated area that has its own particular characteristics, and it would be fully protected under the act?
Mr. Tom Lee: Right.
• 1035
Mr. Bruce Amos: The map sometimes has been confusing, so it's an excellent question. The purpose of the map showing the regions lies in... the philosophy behind a system of marine conservation areas is to try to preserve for future Canadians an example, a sample if you like, of each of the diverse marine environments that we find around our coasts and in the Great Lakes.
The map is the scientists' way of saying what are the major distinct marine environments we have in our country. The scientists look and they say, Hudson Bay is distinct from what you find further north on Lancaster Sound, etc. That's a form of distinction of marine regions.
The purpose of what we intend to do with marine conservation areas is within each of those distinct regions to find a good sample. Find a sample that could be conserved so that Canadians will have a sample of each of the diverse regions.
Mr. Shawn Murphy: That answered the question. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any further questions? Ms. Bulte.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the Gwaii Haanas area, I understand that negotiations have been ongoing for a while in that area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of the oil companies have actually surrendered their leases in that area. I've also heard that negotiations have come to a standstill. Is there any reason for that? Are they waiting to have the act pass? Why, when there seemed to be all this momentum there to the point where the oil companies surrendered their leases, can we now stop negotiating?
Mr. Tom Lee: We were held up primarily because of the leases. The last leases were given up and donated back by the oil companies about one year ago. That was an important step, which will allow us to move ahead.
The second step, and it has a little bit to do with some of the points raised over jurisdiction, is that in this particular area, the Hecate Strait, which lies between Gwaii Haanas and the mainland, is an area where the federal government says it has jurisdiction over the seabed and the province says it has jurisdiction over the seabed. The interesting thing is we're not arguing about it. Just one month ago, the B.C. government passed an order in council transferring “their interest in the seabed” to the federal government.
We now have all of the oil and gas leases removed, and we now have ownership of the seabed. We now can proceed to what will be a process primarily with the Haida people for establishing a management plan for that area.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Do you know what your approximate timeframe would be?
Mr. Tom Lee: We would anticipate that would take about two years.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mrs. Gallant, Mr. Bonwick, and Mr. Cuzner.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Recognizing that marine parks can and have been established without this act, and that this bill really serves to establish marine parks through orders in council, and having seen how the government deals with managing the fisheries, like the cod fishery and the lobster fishery in Burnt Church, what exactly is meant by the term in Bill C-10 “sustainable development”?
Secondly, in follow-up to Madame Gagnon, what happens if a land claim is made after the marine park is established?
Mr. Tom Lee: On the meaning of “sustainable development”, these areas are intended to illustrate some of the more advanced elements of resource management of any place in Canada. Perhaps one of the parallels, for example, on the land base would be the model forest program in which selected areas have been identified, and communities and industry and government departments, federal and provincial, work together to put into practice the very best science, the very best knowledge, on how to sustain resources. So I view national marine conservation areas within that context, recognizing that parts of the areas will also be fully protected.
• 1040
So these are places where we as Canadians, and
Canadians from all walks of life, whether they be on
the industrial side or the tourism side, can bring
together the very best knowledge they have and the very
best form of communication and partnership to
demonstrate how these areas can be managed sustainably
and hopefully to see the best practices that are
contained in these areas become standards that are
accepted, adopted, and practised outside of marine
conservation areas as well.
That was the first question. I'm sorry, could you repeat the second part of the question, Ms. Gallant, on land claims.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant: You described what would happen in terms of the provisos that are made when you first look at an area and assess whether or not there are existing land claims, but what happens if a land claim is made after a marine park is established?
Mr. Tom Lee: I'm trying to figure out if we would have any examples of that. Bruce, I can't think of any that have ever occurred.
Mr. Bruce Amos: Our experience, as you will know, is mainly on the terrestrial side with the national parks.
The idea of a national park reserve or its parallel, a marine conservation area reserve, is to look at areas where treaties have not been entered into, so we're dealing with areas generally of large comprehensive claims. It's known where treaties have been entered into, and also known are those places of the country where there are no treaties and therefore where there is an outstanding comprehensive claim, as in most parts of British Columbia and, until recently, across the north. Negotiations are underway in Labrador, as you know, although they are resolved in northern Quebec.
So on a large plan, it's known where treaties exist and where comprehensive claims have yet to be resolved.
Through the discussions prior to the establishment of the area, our experience is that there has always been clarity as to whether the area has an outstanding comprehensive claim or not and therefore would be established as a reserve or not.
But it is a very good question as to what would be the circumstance if existing treaties were reinterpreted through judgments of the Supreme Court, for example, or through negotiations the Government of Canada is having, for example, in Saskatchewan, where aspects of the original treaties are under discussion with first nations.
We of course are subject to decisions of the Supreme Court affecting the interpretation of existing treaties, and we're subject to broader negotiations or reinterpretations of treaties that the federal government might honour, so I can't give a specific answer. We've not had a specific case where a decision has been made to set aside an area as, say, a national park or marine conservation area and then a claim of a comprehensive nature has come along afterward.
The only principled answer I can give you is that it would be our obligation to respect either court decisions or future agreements by the Government of Canada in the area of treaties.
I make a distinction too between comprehensive claim settlements and what the department and aboriginal people refer to as specific claims under treaties. There are a number of examples where we have addressed with other partners in the Government of Canada specific claims even though the area is not a reserve. We have reached agreements in Wood Buffalo to that effect. So we would honour our obligations on both fronts.
The Chair: Briefly, Ms. Gallant.
• 1045
Ms. Cheryl Gallant: The reason I asked the question is that in southwestern Ontario we had a provincial park that is now the subject of a claim by the Caldwell First Nation, and that surfaced out of seemingly nowhere.
Mr. Bruce Amos: I'm not familiar with the specifics of the provincial park situation, although I have heard of it. I think the only principle I can give in answer is that where new agreements are entered into by the Government of Canada or there are new decisions by the Supreme Court affecting rights of aboriginal people, the establishment of these areas would respect those. In part, that's what the non-abrogation clause, which was inserted after the last committee hearings, is intended to respect.
The Chair: Mr. Bonwick, and then Mr. Cuzner.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the purposes of discussion on Bill C-10, it might be of interest—and Mr. Lee made mention of the fact—that this is the son of Bill C-48. For the purpose of those who weren't here in 1998 when we were going through Bill C-48, it might be of use for the clerk to provide them with a copy of Bill C-48 so that they can see some of the truly meaningful changes that have taken place from all members who were involved at that point in time, and the fact that many of these changes were directed by the committee itself.
It might also be useful for some of the opposition members to access through the archives some of the questions that are being raised, because similar questions were raised when we were dealing with Bill C-48. I think some of the opposition members did a very good job at getting to the meat of the problems as they understood them, and they were addressed at that point in time. I don't think ridiculous fearmongering is appropriate, because many of these issues were addressed.
Contrary to that kind of approach, in my opinion, and by and large, for all the witnesses—I can't think of any who didn't think of it in this fashion—this has really been a motherhood issue, the fact that there is a role for the federal government to play in marine conservation. I think that was generally accepted by all witnesses, regardless of who they were, even oil and gas exploration companies, that there was a role for the federal government to play in the protection of our marine parks and that the necessary tools to do so had to be created through this marine act.
The main or overriding issue tended to be centred around consultation. That was the primary issue on the last go-round, if I'm not mistaken. Are there enough provisions to ensure that all stakeholders have had an opportunity for input before the creation, at the end of the day, of a national marine park?
I would like to address that overriding issue and ask, first of all—we spoke about the provincial government and the need to have them on side—are there provisions or is there a necessity to ensure that municipal governments that are going to be impacted have an opportunity for input?
Secondly, to any of the staff, are there any provisions that you would envision being included that would strengthen the inclusivity of the bill, the opportunities for more consultation? I've read it and was involved with it as Bill C-48, and I've reviewed it as Bill C-10, and I can't imagine any other wording that's going to make it any more inclusive from a stakeholder's standpoint than what it is. So in that regard, if you have some suggestions on how we can broaden it, I'd be interested in hearing them.
Ms. Susan Katz (Director, Legislation and Policy Branch, Parks Canada Agency): First of all, on the question about consulting with municipal governments, in clause 10 of the bill, the minister is obliged to provide opportunities for consultation, and the section then goes on to identify who the minister must consult.
One of the organizations or parties that the minister must consult, in addition to federal and provincial ministers, is affected coastal communities. We could read that to include not only commercial interests within communities but also municipal governments themselves.
Indeed, in a feasibility study that has recently come to a conclusion on the north shore of Lake Superior, the regional committee that was constituted to participate in that study was indeed made up of representatives of the communities along the north shore of Lake Superior.
• 1050
So they're certainly provided for in the legislation,
and we could see in looking at the Lake Superior study,
for example, how that practice has worked through on
the ground.
As to the question of whether or not the consultation provisions could be strengthened, what the bill provides for is consultation on the establishment of policy, the establishment of individual marine conservation areas, and the management of marine conservation areas. So it's quite a comprehensive provision, taking it through from policy to area study, to establishment, to management of the area on an ongoing basis.
If the committee has some advice for us on how those might be strengthened, we would certainly like to consider that.
The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.
Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): I have a river designated as a heritage river in my riding, the Margaree River. The community group that have become the stewards of this particular river were certainly elated when they received the designation.
But I sense some frustration on their part now, because they have the title, but as far as any type of support tools to assist them with preservation of the habitat, enforcement issues... There's a hatchery on the river that is over a hundred years old that is identified as a key component of that river system, and they just haven't received as much support as they thought would lend itself to that designation.
I guess the question is, once an area is designated a marine park area, what types of systems that would enhance enforcement or development or whatever... Are we there yet, in terms of allocation of resources or tentative agreements with departments such as DFO to make sure the preservation is there?
That's my question.
Mr. Tom Lee: On the question of allocation of resources, the way this program operates, before an area is officially established, and specifically a federal-provincial agreement reached, resources have to be in place. So that is a condition of establishment in that sense.
Those resources include both our own direct management and development costs, as well as, depending on the individual area, costs for partnerships with, in some cases, local communities, local organizations, and so on. So that is the way the process works.
Generally, the way government treats the establishment of new areas is that they establish a four- or five-year funding horizon that gives you the general parameters of what might be available. Then we proceed on that basis to negotiate agreements that contain commitments to develop and manage the area.
It is substantively different from the national heritage river program in which the national heritage rivers, unless they're in a national park, are not managed by the federal government. They're very much local volunteer organizations and local government, grassroots-type activities. It's people operating, doing their best, in their own backyard.
Mr. Rodger Cuzner: They recognize that, as do I, but still, it's not uncommon to have at least some support tools there to assist them with the job they've undertaken. But I certainly recognize the onus is on the local community.
The Chair: Maybe, Mr. Cuzner, your point will be registered by Mr. Lee. Now that you're here and you have contact with him on a more frequent basis, maybe you can put a bug in his ear on a consistent basis.
• 1055
Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Thank you for that sage advice.
The Chair: He's a very patient gentleman, and he will listen to you.
Madame Gagnon, you have one last question.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I'd like to focus for a moment on the possible dispute between the provinces and the federal government over the ownership of the seabed. Why wasn't the same approach taken in the case of this particular bill on marine areas? I see that the St. Lawrence estuary is on the list of natural regions. Therefore, I think it might be a good idea to discuss with Quebec agreements that could be concluded even before a decision is made to designate a marine conservation area.
In the case of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, agreements were discussed in advance. In the case of this bill, we have the opposite situation. There must be some reason for this approach. Why weren't jurisdictional issues discussed before steps were taken to establish a natural marine area in a region where ownership was possibly in dispute?
Mr. Bruce Amos: I'd like to draw a distinction between a natural region, a natural marine region and a marine conservation area. This map represents a scientific exercise which was the basis of our network planning process. The province is well aware of the studies we have conducted and of the fact that we have divided the three oceans and Great Lakes into separate marine regions. This was a purely scientific exercise, one that has no bearing whatsoever on jurisdictions.
Should a decision be made in the future to establish or designate a marine area, close consultations would certainly take place between the federal government and the province as well as with the communities that have an interest in the region. For the moment, no proposals have been made to establish marine areas in the natural regions you spoke of, regions where ownership of the seabed is unclear.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You're saying that of the 28 possible marine areas, you haven't identified potential sites other than as part of a scientific exercise. For example, you can't say whether you intend to establish a marine area in the St. Lawrence estuary. Is that in fact what you're telling us?
Mr. Bruce Amos: All we've done is identify separate regions. In the case of certain regions, we have conducted scientific studies to identify representative areas within these regions. We have only just begun this work. Therefore, while we have identified, with the help of scientific experts from various fields, those areas which may be representative, only those regions identified on this map were taken into consideration for the purpose of our study and public consultation phase and for park proposal purposes.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I was wondering if the Magdalen Shallows are located in the Magdalen Islands. They aren't?
Mr. Bruce Amos: No.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Really?
Mr. Bruce Amos: Are you asking if we have any studies?
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: No. I was wondering if the Magdalen Shallows marine conservation area is located in the vicinity of the Magdalen Islands. You're saying that it is not, correct?
Mr. Bruce Amos: It is a much larger region in the gulf.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Just before we close, Ms. Gallant has asked me for a brief question, and so has Mr. Harvey. So, if you could, please make it brief, and the answers brief, because I think we'll have to see the rule page.
• 1100
Ms. Cheryl Gallant: In reference to the advisory committees, Mr. Amos, would you provide the committee with a list of members who were on the advisory committee and witnesses called for the Bonavista and Notre Dame Bays advisory committee?
Mr. Bruce Amos: The witnesses called by this committee? Sorry?
Ms. Cheryl Gallant: By the Bonavista and Notre Dame advisory... Would you provide us with a list of the people who sat on that committee, as well as their witnesses?
Mr. Bruce Amos: As well as their... I'm sorry—
Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Their witnesses who were called in.
Mr. Bruce Amos: We can certainly provide a list of the members of the committee. They didn't proceed in a formal fashion by which you could necessarily identify a list of witnesses, but certainly all the materials that we have about their work can be made available to the committee.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Harvey, and then we'll close.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: I'm convinced, Mr. Chairman, that given her roots in Chicoutimi, my Bloc colleague is naturally thinking about the Saguenay fjord. I haven't lost sight of this reality. If I've understood correctly, it means that as a result of the talks and memorandum of agreement with the Government of Quebec, the process of designating a marine conservation area in the estuary and fjord will be facilitated. Some measure of cooperation has existed over the past number of years and I'm pleased to see, unless I'm mistaken, that this agreement will speed up the process of designating this marine area.
The Chair: Is that a comment or question?
Mr. André Harvey: I just want to be certain that I understand the situation clearly, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bruce Amos: As I see it, close cooperation at all levels between Quebec and Canada on the Saguenay-St. Lawrence is very important. This situation is unique and parallel legislation has been adopted. The question, however, is this: will this productive cooperation benefit future cooperative efforts? I would certainly hope so.
Mr. André Harvey: It is indeed a beautiful region, Mr. Amos. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presence here. We really appreciated it, and I think it was extremely useful.
The meeting is adjourned.
