HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 30, 2001

• 1518

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I now call the meeting to order.

(On clause 7—Amendment to be tabled in Parliament)

The Chair: We're on amendment G-9, on page 34, and as I explained before, because amendments CA-16, CA-17, CA-18, CA-19, and CA-20 refer to the same lines as amendment G-9 and cover the same subject, if amendment G-9 carries, the others fall away.

We had agreed that we would have a general discussion on all the items and then take a vote.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

In amendment CA-16, which is on page 36, we're asking to include the words “proposed human uses”. In other words, it would need:

an interim management plan that sets out objectives for managing the area, proposed human uses, and a zoning plan

The rationale for adding those three words is to ensure that the interim management plan not only focuses on preservation of the ecosystem in its zoning plan, but will try to include proposed human uses in the MCA. This will ensure that the drafters of the interim management plan keep in mind that the MCA is to be shared between scientists, environmentalists, and those who make their living from the sea.

• 1520

A balance is what is needed, and by including “proposed human uses”, the interim management plan would have to be explicit about whether or not the area would be off limits to human use, limited, or only allowed within certain zones. By specifically including the words “proposed human uses”, the plan must explain how the MCA will affect the current use of the area.

In the interest of fairness to those who make their living from the sea, this amendment should be allowed.

That's amendment CA-16.

The Chair: Why don't you go on to the others too, Mr. Burton?

Mr. Andy Burton: If I can get it straight here with all these numbers...

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, PC/DR): I'm not sure we have enough members; we need nine. We can take the explanation. We just can't take a vote.

The Chair: We won't take a vote. Thank you, Mr. McNally.

Carry on, then, Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: As long as Tony is going to vote for it, that's fine.

I'll get back to my train of thought here. I guess we're talking about amendment CA-18 now.

The Chair: No, I think it's amendment CA-17.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): We just did amendment CA-16.

The Chair: We're going on to amendment CA-17 now.

Mr. Andy Burton: All right. There's some confusion with the numbering.

We move that:

7(2) The committee of each House shall, within 20 sitting days after the amendment is tabled, issue a written report to the House that it approves or disapproves the amendment, in which case a motion to concur in the report shall be put to the House in accordance with its procedures.

So there are some minor changes in wording there, the rationale being that, as currently drafted, subclause 7(2) is structured such that a committee need not review or even report back to the House on the amendment to schedules 1 or 2 unless it disagrees with the amendment.

Further to that, the time limit on this subclause indicates that should the committee be too busy with legislation, which is a priority of the committee, such that it cannot review the report until after the time limit has elapsed, the amendment is deemed approved.

I don't know if we want to editorialize or not.

Therefore, this amendment ensures that the committee for each must review the proposed amendment to schedules 1 or 2 within the time limit of 20 days and report their findings to the respective House in writing.

So, summing up, it's basically to make sure there is a timeframe there in which there will be a response.

Now we'll go to amendment CA-18.

All we're doing there is adding the word “less”, so that it reads:

7(3) The motion shall be debated for not less than three hours and disposed of in accordance with the procedures of the House.

The current subclause 7(3) serves to limit debate on the proposed amendment to schedules 1 or 2 and thereby limits the democratic process afforded to parliamentarians and senators. The amendment will ensure that at least three hours is given in the House of Parliament to debate such an important issue as the creation of a specific MCA.

As you all know, three hours of debate is not long at all, and with the number of parties represented in the House today, it would ensure that the House only hears maybe one or two speakers per party. This is not too much to ask, in my opinion.

Amendment CA-19 is a new subclause 7(4), dealing with an affirmative vote on the report. The clause would read:

7(4) A proposed amendment to Schedule 1 or 2 may be made if the result of the vote on the motion referred to in subsection (2) in both Houses is in the affirmative.

The rationale is that it will ensure that the committee of both Houses not only review the proposed amendment to schedules 1 or 2, but that both Houses of Parliament must vote to approve the committee's reports, thereby approving the proposed MCA. This amendment will add another layer of democratic checks and balances to the creation, and that's all we're looking for, checks and balances.

We'll leave that one.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Burton, just to clarify, it's not a new clause. You're amending subclause 7(4).

Mr. Andy Burton: Yes, I'm sorry, we're amending subclause 7(4) to add from “the result of” to “in the affirmative”.

The last one, amendment CA-20, is again an amendment or an addition, to read:

7(5) A proposed amendment to Schedule 1 or 2 may not be made if the result of the vote on the motion referred to in subsection (2) in either House is negative.

Again, the rationale is similar to the last one, whereby it ensures that the House must vote on the proposed MCA.

We'll leave it at that. What we're looking for is, again, some more input from the House.

The Chair: I understand that.

• 1525

Strictly according to procedure, if amendment G-9 were to carry, the others, from amendment CA-16 to amendment CA-20, would fall away. But the parliamentary secretary had suggested before that we let Mr. Burton explain it and see if, by any chance, something could happen so that we could blend the two and go from there.

Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps let me start with G-18, which is the one that says “less than three hours”. When I said it's technical, what in fact this amendment does to clause 7, with respect to the English and French versions—

The Chair: You're talking about amendment CA-18, not G-18.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Sorry, it's amendment CA-18.

What we are proposing in amendment G-9 is actually to delete that section completely so that there would not be any kind of time limit on debate. This was something we spoke of earlier with Madame Gagnon.

If you look, we talk about replacing lines 30 to 34, which is that whole subclause 7(3), with other amendments that don't have anything to do with that. So for all intents and purposes, we are deleting subclause 7(3) completely, so there would be no time limit on debate.

Based on that, Mr. Burton, I hope you'll be able to support our amendment.

The Chair: No, just—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Let me just go one at a time. That was the simplest one.

Then, with respect to amendments CA-17 and CA-19, where you're proposing a different process, about issuing, in amendment CA-17, within 20 days “a written report to the House that it approves or disapproves”, and the same in amendment CA-19, where you...

The establishment process that is found in Bill C-10 tracks the same process as in the National Parks Act. We're trying to harmonize the two. That's why our recommendation is not to accept that.

We're trying to mirror, to a certain degree, the National Parks Act, and by agreeing to amendments CA-17 and CA-19, we wouldn't be doing that. That's why we don't want that amendment.

Let's talk about amendment CA-16, which is where we first started, about amending it for proposed human uses. It is our position that this is redundant for two reasons.

If you look at subclause 4(1), which we've already talked about, it talks about the purposes of the act, about the “education and enjoyment of the people of Canada and the world”—and we talked about the “and the world” part.

If you look at subclause 9(1), you'll see that, within the management plan, we talk about preparing “a management plan for the marine conservation area including provisions for ecosystem protection, human use and zoning”. So we're already dealing with the whole concept of human use.

All I'm saying here, Mr. Burton, is that they're redundant. They're already taken care of in subclauses 4(1) and 9(1).

In regard to your last one, amendment CA-20, again it's the government's position here that it's not necessary. Bill C-10 already provides that an NMCA or an NMCA reserve may not be established if either House passes a motion concurring with the committee report to disapprove the establishment.

A voice: We are where?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Amendment CA-20 is—

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): It's already provided for in the bill.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It's already provided for in that clause. Our main concern here is that they're redundant.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte, maybe you could also speak to your amendment itself, because it—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'm sorry, I thought I had done that.

First of all, the first part replaces the English language with the following words, “management objectives”, as opposed to “for managing the area”. That's just so there's concordance with the French version. That's very basic.

• 1530

In subclause 7(2) as it now stands it says “within 20 sitting days”. We're proposing to change that to “within 30 sitting days”. So that extends the time period there by 10 days.

Mr. John Harvard: So that's more generous.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes. Then we replace lines 30 to 34. The amendment would start as subclause (3), so the present subclause (3) is completely deleted. So there's no time limit on debate. That was what came out loud and clear at the hearings as well.

With regard to the proposed amendment to schedule 1 or 2—

The Chair: The proposed amendment may be made.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: The other thing is that this is also parallel to the process within the National Parks Act, which we passed and which came into effect in February 2001. So we're trying to replicate the same approach in the changes that have been made here.

The Chair: The 31 days.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: With all due respect, I'm quite sure the government has every good intention with this bill. I really don't question that. But what we're looking for here is assurance that the time will be there for consultation. That's where we feel it's weak. That's what we heard from our witnesses, that they're looking for assurances. The committee has to do a review, and what we're asking for in most of these amendments is assurances that will happen. I agree that if you take the three hours out, you could be able to debate it forever. But you could also not be able to debate it at all, and that's a concern. It would be nice to have that amendment in that says “not less than”. Then there are assurances that it will be debated. That's what we're looking for.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Given the practice around here, even though we sometimes use time allocation and so on, it would be very rare not to have at least three hours on a particular bill. I can't even imagine a situation where you would not get three hours. So you're going to get your three hours and more by the elimination of this particular clause.

Mr. Andy Burton: Again, with all due respect, it's not a bill, it's a report. As Mr. McNally said a number of times, politicians come and go, but this legislation is going to be here for a long, long time. We're just trying to get it right, that's all.

[Translation]

The Chair: Fine.

Go ahead, Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): We could always compromise. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage claims to be magnanimous and willing to allot sufficient time to reassure the opposition. We could agree on a minimum of three hours, without this being overly restrictive. If, as you claim, you are quite open-minded as far as the time factor is concerned, there won't be any problem and we can agree on the three-hour minimum. That wouldn't be out of line with your wishes, since we would still have a minimum of three hours. I don't know if...

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: What we're trying to do in this clause is to mirror the process of the National Parks Act. This also came up when we were doing that act. There had been a minimum time limit on that, so that nobody was restricted...

The Chair: Can you tell us, Mr. Lee, what the National Parks Act actually says about the minimum of three hours?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It was taken away. So we're trying to have some consistency, because the parks agency is the one that would administer this.

Mr. Andy Burton: Mr. Chairman, bills are debated, that's a given, but reports are not necessarily debated. This would guarantee that there would be a minimum amount of time to debate. I think it's really important that we have some guarantee along those lines.

The Chair: There are two choices. As you know, if G-9 stands, then the others fall away. We've heard all the arguments and we've had a thorough discussion on all of it. Do I understand that you will leave G-9 as it is?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes. I would ask the members to support the government amendment as it has been proposed.

• 1535

The Chair: As it is.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, in this particular case I think what the parliamentary secretary is suggesting as to how the bill would be written according to the government's version is even more generous than what Mr. Burton is suggesting. So I'll go with the more generous version.

The Chair: I think the intention is not to restrict. That is why when the National Parks Act was being discussed, many people said that three hours was just not adequate. All of this is on record. I think it would be almost impossible to think that there would be less than three hours in any debate. Certainly, it will be more.

Anyway, we've heard both sides of the argument.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 7 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 8—Management by Minister)

The Chair: There's amendment G-10 on pages 41 and 42.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chairman, this is a change to line 20 on page 7 of the bill. This has to do with the minister entering into agreements with provincial ministers and agencies, local and aboriginal governments, and bodies established under land claims agreements. As it presently reads, it says “and non-governmental organizations”. Our amendment is to insert “and other persons and organizations”. If you don't have an official organization, it widens the agreements that can be made with interested persons.

Mr. John Harvard: In other words, you're taking out the non-governmental qualifier.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Absolutely, and putting in “and other persons and organizations”.

Mr. John Harvard: That makes it wider.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: So it doesn't have to be an NGO.

Mr. Andy Burton: I don't have any problem with it, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 9—Management plans)

The Chair: We have amendments CA-21, G-11, and CA-22.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, we have already voted, but I would like to make one comment. The bill never contains any obligations. The word “may” is constantly used and never is...

Consider the following example: “The Minister may enter into agreements [...] for carrying out the purposes of this Act”. The intent is never clearly stated, hence our reservations about conventions and agreements. They are never clear.

The Chair: This is done deliberately so that people have a choice. We cannot force the minister to enter into agreements.

[English]

Could we go on to CA-21, Mr. Burton?

Mr. Andy Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to change the five years to “three years after a marine conservation area is established”. The rationale is that we think it would be most appropriate for that to be dealt with during that government's mandate. Three years is well inside those mandates, and it would be the appropriate way to deal with that. Three years is certainly adequate time. There is lots of time to come out with a plan. If you have a reasonable timeframe, usually you'll work within that timeframe. We feel that five years is excessive, and it could be outside of the mandate.

The Chair: Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

Why we have chosen five years is again to mirror the Parks Act.

If we look as well, Mr. Burton and committee members, at subclause 7(1), which we just passed, that already provides for an interim management plan when it's even tabled.

• 1540

So it's not like we're waiting for five years for any kind of management plan to be tabled. One of the conditions before these marine conservation areas can be created is to have that interim plan there.

Again, my major reason for not agreeing is because we're tracking the National Parks Act and the interim plan is provided for as a secondary basis.

Mr. Andy Burton: Possibly an amendment to the National Parks Act would be in order, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Let's fix the National Parks Act.

Mr. John Harvard: It seems to me that it's almost as if we've fallen into some contradiction here.

It seems that in a lot of the discussion around amendments, the suggestion has been from the opposition side to slow down, take it easy, take time for consultation. Now when we have a suggestion that we take five years to put forward a plan, we're getting suggestions it should be done in three.

I sense a contradiction here. I see nothing wrong with that section at all.

The Chair: Can we take a vote then on CA-21.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Mrs. Bulte, G-11, on page 44.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: There are two changes here replacing lines 25 to 28. We've added the word “with” before “affected coastal communities”, so it's “with affected coastal communities”. It's in consultation with affected coastal communities. Then after “aboriginal organizations” we've inserted the words “aboriginal governments”, which must be consulted when the minister prepares a management plan.

Then there's a second set of amendments from line 31 to 33. We're adding the following in there: “that includes a long-term ecological vision for the marine conservation area”, and we're also putting in “public awareness and performance evaluation” after “zoning”.

So what will be included in the management plan was expanded to provide a more comprehensive description of critical contents of the management plan.

The Chair: Are we ready for the question?

[Translation]

I'm sorry Ms. Gagnon. You have the floor.

Ms. Christian Gagnon: I have one short question. Regarding shared jurisdiction over such fields as the environment, when ecosystems or ecological questions are involved, will the government act in cooperation with the provinces?

The Chair: Yes, everything is open to consultation.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Good.

The Chair: Everything.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Fine.

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: In consultation with relevant ministers, federal and provincial ministries and agencies. That doesn't change. We're just expanding the consultations, expanding the scope of the management plans, and we're adding more stuff to it.

Mr. John Harvard: Let's call the question.

The Chair: The question has been called. All

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We go to CA-22.

Mr. Andy Burton: Again, Mr. Chairman, we're looking to change the timeframe from five to three years. The minister shall review the management plan of a marine conservation area at least every three years, and any amendments so planned shall be tabled with a plan in each House of Parliament.

The rationale is that the marine environment is ever changing, and as such, for an MCA to have an effect on either helping a species rebound in an area of concern or ensuring a species doesn't get out of control in that same area, the management plan and the site report on the MCA should be reviewed at least every three years.

The number three is significant as it ensures the review is done within the mandate of a government. The same government could have implemented the same MCA it is now forced to review three years later. This ensures the government of the day is fully aware of the changes in the environment the MCA they created has had. In many cases this will make the MCAs accountable to the government that created them.

• 1545

So again, it's to be able to hold the government accountable and make them review within a reasonable timeframe that fits within the mandate.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: The government response on this is that we feel it is too short of a time within which to evaluate the existing plan. Five years seems to be the norm elsewhere. That's why five years has been picked.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We'll go on to G-12(c).

The vote on G-12 applies to G-16. If it carries, CA-23, which refers to the same lines and the same subject, cannot carry.

For your information, G-16 is on page 59. So G-12 affects CA-23 and G-16.

Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: The first part of this amendment is in the last line on page 7, line 43. The wording is:

In order to protect marine ecosystems and maintain marine biodiversity, the primary considerations in the development and modification of management plans shall be

That's what it says now. We want to insert, after the words “management plans”, “and interim management plans”. So these are the considerations that go into the interim management plans that will be filed in the House at the time the marine conservation area is to be created. That's number one.

Then, if you turn to page 8 in the bill, replacing line 3, we are adding—

The Chair: The same thing, “interim management plans”.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes, it's “or interim management plan”, the same thing, so that again it's not just the management plan, it's the interim management plan that has to be filed at the time the marine conservation area is to be tabled.

Then in subclause 9(5), we've taken out the word, in line number 8, “lands” and replaced that with “an area”, so that now reads “If a marine conservation area includes an area” as opposed to “lands”. And we've changed the word “are” to “is”, “that is subject of an aboriginal land claims agreement”. Again, we're inserting “the management plan or interim management plan”, so it's the same consistent interim management plan.

The Chair: In other words, basically the amendment brings in “interim management plan” in these sections.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: The other thing you should note is that “for that area” it should say for “the” marine conservation area. We're being very specific on that.

Mr. John Harvard: You're changing “lands” to “areas”—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It's “area”.

Mr. John Harvard: —to simply include areas where there might be water, not just land?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: That's exactly right. Land claim agreements can encompass also not just land but water, so in short, land as well as water is covered by this.

Mr. Andy Burton: Mr. Chairman, we actually have an amendment that is affected by this. Maybe I could just read it.

The Chair: By all means.

Mr. Andy Burton: It's amendment number CA-23.

The Chair: Page 49.

Mr. Andy Burton: It's subclause 9(3), lines 41 to 43, beginning with “In order to protect marine ecosystems and maintain marine biodiversity”. We would add “consideration may be given in the development and modification of management plans”, and to that would be added “principles of ecosystem management and the precautionary principle as defined in the Preamble of this Act”.

The rationale is that as currently written this subclause is too heavily weighted towards the concerns of environmental movements and environmental issues.

• 1550

The amendments tone the words down slightly by removing a reference to the primary considerations in development by stating that considerations may be given. It opens up the scope of the bill so that consideration can be given to issues other than just conservation and species' needs in the creation of an MCA; the needs of local economies that survive or die by the living their inhabitants make off the resources of the ocean can be included. By restricting the precautionary principle to the definition referred to in the preamble, we make the act clearer and the principle better defined.

Again, we're looking for balance here. We all see the environmental side of things. We also have to see the socio-economic things, namely the impact on the local communities, on those who live by the sea and utilize or wish to utilize those resources as well. We're looking for balance here, and I really think it's necessary that we do that.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chairman and committee members, the government's response is that inserting provisions to the effect that consideration may be given would lower the standard of protection and conservation by making optional the ecosystem management and the whole precautionary principle that is in the preamble. I suggest that this would defeat the intent of what we're trying to do here. We are trying to create a balance, because it is a question of balance between ecological integrity and sustainable use.

Mr. Andy Burton: Could we say then, Mr. Chairman, “shall” instead of “may”? That would be quite acceptable: “consideration shall be given”.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: The words in subclause 9(3) are “the primary considerations... shall be”, and I think we have to be clear that there are considerations of ecological integrity. We're kidding ourselves if we don't think that's part of the act. It's not the only part of the act, but it is a main purpose of this act.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): It's an overriding thing.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes, it's an overriding thing. When we say “the primary considerations” as opposed to “consideration shall be”, I think we're just laying out what is the primary goal.

The Chair: All right, we've heard the two sides now. As I explained to you, G-12 has an impact on CA-23, as does B-16 as well on page 59. Are we ready for the question on G-12?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: I'd like to draw particular attention to G-13 because this was addressed by many members. Mr. McNally addressed it, and I think perhaps this is the nub of the bill in many ways.

Ms. Bulte, would you speak to it?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I think we're all adamant on this one, and the concern throughout the hearings was that the minister shall provide opportunities. Most people felt it was a bit fluffy. We were saying that the whole purpose of this bill was to consult, yet there were not the necessary words that made it mandatory. We are proposing an amendment to subclause 10(1), where instead of saying “shall provide opportunities for consultation”, it will say “shall consult”. So we take out “shall provide”—

The Chair: Which ties in with the amendment proposal of Mr. Burton under CA-24.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: But wait, there's more; that's the first part. Then after “aboriginal organizations” on lines 17 and 18, we're also adding “aboriginal governments”. We're changing it to “the Minister shall consult with relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies”. Then we're also adding—instead of the word “and”—“with” affected coastal communities. So it's not “and” but “with”, and it makes it mandatory as opposed to precatory.

Then after “aboriginal organizations” we're also adding “aboriginal governments”. Then, where it says “with any other persons and bodies”, they must be consulted not only in the marine conservation area policy but also—and I think you'll like this—on the regulations; we've added the words “and regulations”.

The Chair: I think Mr. NcNally brought that up.

• 1555

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: So we've also required a means to consult with respect to regulations—remember, “shall” makes it mandatory—and “the modification of any marine conservation area”. The key word here is “any”. That was another concern Mr. McNally had.

The Chair: In other words, whether it's on disputed land or wherever.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes, “any”.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: I have to agree that this does go some way toward addressing our concerns, although I think we would have preferred our amendments. They would have made it firmer as far as provincial positions are concerned. However, this certainly does address our concerns to some degree, and I appreciate that.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I think we put a lot of the concerns in one pot.

The Chair: I think it reflects a large consensus here to make this much stronger, and I think it achieves the objective.

Monsieur Duplain.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I'm trying to understand something. The expression “coastal communities” is being deleted.

The Chair: No, it is not.

Mr. Claude Duplain: The wording of the clause is the same but...

The Chair: If you look at amendment G-13 carefully, you will note that it reads “with affected coastal communities”.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: It's not every coastal community, only affected coastal communities.

[English]

The Chair: It's okay.

The question has been called on amendment G-13.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: So CA-24 falls away.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It's the same thing.

The Chair: Yes, I know. It falls away.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It's not defeated.

The Chair: Shall clause 10 as amended carry?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: On a point of order, I don't believe we agreed on clause 9 as amended.

The Chair: We did.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: We did? I didn't write it down. I apologize.

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 11—Area advisory committees)

The Chair: We have two amendments to clause 11, CA-25 and G-14.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll first read the clause:

11(1) The Minister shall, for each marine conservation area, establish a management advisory committee to advise the Minister on the formulation, review and implementation of a management plan for the area.

We would add this:

The advisory committee shall report in writing its findings and recommendations to the Minister. The Minister shall cause to be tabled in each House of Parliament each report from the advisory committee, upon receipt.

The rationale here is that, as it's currently written, the MCA management advisory committee is not required to provide a written report to the minister, only to provide advice to the minister on the formulation, review, and implementation of the management plan. The amendment ensures that the advisory committee produces a written report to the minister. As well, to ensure that the entire process is open, it requires the minister to table the written report before both the House of Commons and the Senate, making it a public report for all to read and review.

There were those witnesses who said the creation of MCAs within the secrecy of cabinet was not an open enough process for the general public. This amendment speaks to that concern, and at least allows the minister's advisory committee, the committee that assists him or her in deciding very important management issues within MCAs, to make their opinions known to the public through their member of Parliament or their respective senator.

Again, it's just to ensure openness, Mr. Chairman. That's all we ask.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chairman, it's the government's position that this is a totally impractical amendment. It would mean that Parliament would get into the day-to-day operations of a national marine conservation area. I don't think it's practical, and I think there are other safeguards in the bill.

The Chair: Any other comments or questions?

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I think I would want to hear a little bit more. Unless I misunderstand Mr. Burton, the thrust of his amendment seems to be to have a written report from the committee as opposed to... I'm not sure whether it's implicit in the bill that any report or any advice from a committee would have to be almost sub rosa, under the table, not to be made public.

Maybe we could hear from one of the witnesses on what would be expected here with respect to how a committee would report.

• 1600

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee (Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency): Yes, I can describe how committees operate in three dimensions. They basically carry out three roles.

The Chair: Do you mean the advisory committees?

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes, I mean the advisory committees.

The first one is strategic. That strategic role is exemplified in their responsibilities to prepare the management plan. It indicates the strategic directions for that area, and the plan, when approved by the minister, is tabled in the House. So that's their strategic role.

The second role they have is in what I would call, for lack of a better word, public affairs. That probably doesn't well describe it, but it is to keep the local park administration on track with regard to local issues and to help sort out those issues. These roles are usually done at the local level. They're rarely brought to the attention of the minister. The advisory committees' task, and the task of my staff, is to do their job on the ground.

The third function of the advisory committees is in what I would call financial and investment priorities. They are consulted with regard to the budgets for the area—the amount of money available and the placement of investments; whether there are investments to be made in facilities; or whether we need to put more of the available money into education versus warden service, and so on.

Those are the ways they function. None of the committees currently prepares any kind of report for the minister on the operations of the area. That is totally decentralized. The minister only becomes involved—and quite frankly, I only become involved—if in fact there's something going wrong. Basically the thing is supposed to work at the local level, and the role of the committee is that strategic role, which is reported to Parliament through the management plan when the management plan is tabled.

The Chair: Are there any other questions? Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: What Mr. Lee said—that the reports are tabled in the House—is not clear. Well, that's good. It's just not clear that's the process.

The Chair: It's in the law.

Mr. Andy Burton: If it is, that's good.

Mr. Tom Lee: Subclause 9(1) refers, Mr. Chairman, to tabling that plan in the House.

The Chair: Subclause 9(1) does?

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes, in the last line.

Mr. Andy Burton: Oh, yes.

Mr. Chairman, that's the management plan, not necessarily a report from the advisory committee. I suspect there could be some difference, though perhaps not.

Mr. Tom Lee: That is the strategic document that is... I wouldn't call it a report. It's a statement; it's a plan; it's a directional plan prepared by the advisory group and recommended to the minister for approval.

An advisory committee can advise the minister on anything it chooses. There's no restriction on it, but, as I said, typically neither myself nor the minister becomes very involved in the day-to-day items. They're resolved. The advice actually goes to the superintendent for the park, and he takes action.

The Chair: Mr. Paul Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Burton, what I think you're doing—and I was just chatting with Ms. Bulte about it—is potentially compromising cabinet privilege. Whether we're on that side, or whoever is in government on that particular day, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Defence all receive reports advising them on certain directions. If that's not necessarily the direction and may not be the full foundation of their final plan—because they receive a multitude of information from a multitude of sources—and if they are responsible on a day-to-day basis to provide those reports to Parliament, what effectively you're doing is not only compromising the security of cabinet but stalling the ability of government to do what it's required to do.

Mr. Andy Burton: Well, we would never want to do that, would we. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

• 1605

Mr. Grant McNally: I think Mr. Bonwick is wrong about that, because reports to cabinet ministers are under cabinet privilege; this is just an advisory group out there somewhere in the world making reports. That is definitely apples and oranges.

The Chair: All right, I think we have had enough discussion now. We've got to move on. Are you ready for the question on CA-25?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It's CA-24.

The Chair: Is it CA-24? I apologize. No, it's CA-25.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: So we go on to amendment G-14.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: In G-14 there are also amendments to clause 11.

Actually, we're amending subclause 11(3) concerning who the minister shall consult with. We're adding, after “The Minister shall consult with”—and this is a new addition—“relevant federal and provincial ministers”. So we have “relevant federal and provincial” in there before “ministers”. With these ministers, we're talking about relevant provincial and federal ministers.

The Chair: And you're saying “ministers and agencies”—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Instead of “or”, we're also putting in “and”.

We're also putting in, after “agencies”:

with affected coastal communities, aboriginal organizations, aboriginal governments and bodies established under land claims agreements, and with

Those are all mandatory words about whom the minister shall consult with.

After “other persons”, instead of the word “or” we're putting in “and bodies”, not “as the Minister”, but “that the Minister”—that's a grammatical error—“that the Minister considers appropriate”.

So we're adding additional, “shall”, mandatory words, which require consultation.

Mr. Grant McNally: I have a question.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm generally supportive of the amendment. I would just ask, should we look at the previous amendment, which I think was G-13, where we put in “of any marine conservation area”, and reflect that into this clause as well, just so it's consistent?

That would be for the witnesses here.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: What we're talking about in this section is the management advisory committees on the implementation of the management plan.

We already have a marine conservation area in place. There's “pre-”, during, and “post-”.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

The Chair: Mrs. Katz.

Ms. Susan Katz (Director, Legislation and Policy Branch, Parks Canada Agency): Yes, that's correct.

The Chair: All right.

Are we ready for the question on G-14?

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 12 agreed to)

(On clause 13—Explorations and exploitation)

The Chair: Among the amendments to clause 13, we start with CA-26.

Mr. Andy Burton: CA-26 and CA-27, Mr. Chair, basically go together.

The Chair: Yes, CA-26 and CA-27 go together.

Mr. Andy Burton: What we would like to do is create a new clause 13.1. Clause 13 would read:

No person shall explore for or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any other inorganic matter except pursuant to section 13.1 within a marine conservation area.

And clause 13(1) would read:

The Minister may permit the use of directional drilling equipment, in the case of sub-sea bed drilling for hydrocarbons, from a point outside a marine conservation area to a point below the sea bed within the marine conservation area, where the practices are determined by the Minister not to pose any serious threat to the existing ecosystem of the marine conservation area.

• 1610

These two amendments go hand in hand. The first ensures that there is no exception to the rule on exploration or removal of resources within an MCA unless specifically stated in 13.1. So 13.1 calls for not only environmentally sustainable resource extraction through the use of new drilling methods but puts the onus on the industry to prove that its methods pose no serious threat to the ecology or ecosystem of the MCA.

Further, the industry must not only prove its methods are environmentally sustainable to the general public, but more importantly they must prove it to the minister.

This amendment should satisfy the industry and those environmental groups concerned about the threat of environmental disaster should directional drilling be allowed from outside the MCA to a point within the MCA.

Further, I'd like to add that the technologies used in directional drilling today are very sophisticated and pose little or no threat to their environment. Many countries around the world allow offshore drilling rigs to use directional drilling. It's an acceptable method of drilling and as such this amendment should be allowed.

Really, all we're saying is if it can be proven to the minister that this can be done... and if it can't be proven, it isn't going to happen. The only way it would proceed is if it could be proven to the minister. I don't think that detracts from the minister's ability at all. It makes the industry prove to the minister, and I think that's really important. If it can't be proven, it wouldn't happen. But it doesn't totally close the door. I think that's what we're trying to do. Let's leave the door open a little here.

The Chair: Madame Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I think this is one area we're totally diametrically opposed on and I think we have different philosophies. Your proposed amendment would in fact allow the development of non-renewable resources. This is not something we want in a marine conservation area. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it is the standard norm in other international agreements that marine conservation areas prohibit the development of non-renewable resources.

So we cannot support Mr. Burton's amendment. Having said that, I think it's very important to realize... I'll use Gwaii Haanas as an example, and I take note of your comments that it was done under another government. They actually undertook feasibility studies in the Gwaii Haanas area, and it was possible to continue negotiations and discussions about making this a national marine conservation area because the feasibility studies actually showed that there was no potential for any kind of oil or gas development. As a result of that feasibility study, four oil companies surrendered their leases.

So there's not going to be a national marine conservation area in an area that has that kind of potential for development, and I think Gwaii Haanas is a perfect example of where there wasn't that potential of development. But again, according to our international agreements and how it's done internationally, national marine conservation areas do not allow the development of non-renewable resources. So I urge you not to support Mr. Burton's amendment.

The Chair: Mr. McNally, and then Mr. Burton, and we'll go on.

Mr. Grant McNally: I understand the perspective, but I ask the question because I'm trying to put my law hat on here, which is pretty weak because I'm not a lawyer, but—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: You're probably better than the ones who are.

An. hon. member: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Grant McNally: You said there's not going to be development, but there would be no MCA that would go ahead in an area where there was potential oil development possibilities, so to speak. In other words, in the example you used, Gwaii Haanas, there was no possibility of developing that resource.

My question would simply be, what guarantees in law do we have... In fact, which clause would I look to in this bill to ensure me, with my law hat on, that the guarantee you just proposed is reflected in the bill?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: If we outrightly... Mr. Chairman, through you, I'm sorry.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm not asking directly the parliamentary secretary but the drafters of the bill.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: What I can do is to provide you with an explanation of the way these things are approached. In the process of looking at either a national park or a national marine conservation area, there is a process involving a number of federal departments, and usually a province or territory, called an MERA, a mineral exploration review assessment, that is carried out. That assessment brings forth a recommendation to government about whether or not there are possible conflicts with the non-renewable resource sector and how to avoid those conflicts. That's basically the process.

• 1615

It isn't a requirement in this law; it's a matter of standing government policy that has been in operation for probably at least 20 years.

The Chair: Mr. Burton, and then Mr. Harvard.

Mr. Andy Burton: As you said, Mr. Lee, that's policy only.

If there were some guarantees in the bill, if it was in the bill that this process would take place, I think it would make it a bit more palatable, but there really is nothing that states this. There is nothing that would really stop an MCA in an area of huge potential for some sort of development.

I'm thinking oil and gas mainly off the coast of B.C., but there could be other opportunities. If this were guaranteed in the bill, I think it would make it relatively palatable, but that guarantee is not there. Policy is great, but policies change.

The Chair: Mr. Harvard, Mr. Bonwick, and then we'll move on.

Mr. John Harvard: I suppose the only comment I would have is that at first blush I have some sympathy for what Mr. Burton is saying. But I think to some extent at least his amendment is driven by desire to have it both ways, to have an MCA and at the same time have oil and gas development, or at least possible oil and gas development.

When I was here, I heard one of the witnesses—or more than one—suggest that they do have technology where they can drill six miles or something. I suppose one can envisage a situation where someone is sneaking under the MCA for a number of miles and extracting oil and gas. There you have oil and gas development from under the MCA, but actually the development would occur somewhere down the road, or down the beach, or whatever. So you could have it both ways.

But my guess is that the amendment in a way, even if it weren't to violate the letter of the bill, would violate the spirit of it. I don't know how inviolate these pieces of legislation are. I would think that if some day there is a discovery under an MCA that may be worth billions and billions of dollars, there may have to be some compromise. I don't think we're there yet, so I think I could live with the bill the way it's written.

The Chair: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I have two points to raise, maybe three, for Mr. Burton.

I remember, Mr. Chair, about two years or 18 months ago we had witnesses come forward and speak surrounding this issue. One of the concerns was brought forward that even though it may be directional mining that is taking place, the centres for these operations do have the opportunity or the ability to have some sort of significant breakdown, leak, whatever the case might be. Then that marine conservation area is adversely affected, even though the drilling is not taking place actually from above. That was an issue raised several months ago. It directly contravenes the intention of the bill.

I'm wondering if I'm going to read an amendment in here in the next few minutes to change the name, Andy, from the national marine conservation areas to the national marine conservation and sustainably economic developable areas.

Mr. Andy Burton: I'd love to see that.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I know. I think that's where we're absolutely opposed.

The Chair: Mr. Burton, one last remark.

Mr. Andy Burton: I want to respond to Mr. Harvard's comments.

The problem is that once an MCA is created... There could be a huge resource under there, but we won't know unless you're allowed to explore and do the testing. Once that MCA is created in perpetuity, basically, you've lost that opportunity. That's a concern.

If it's clear in the bill somewhere that we can determine if this MERA, or whatever it is, is part of the bill, that, yes, we'll determine what may or may not be there before we proceed, I wouldn't have a problem. But once we create that MCA, your ability to explore to find out is gone forever.

I'd like to point out that in northern British Columbia, in the Tatshenshini, which, yes, is a beautiful area—I've been there, I've flown over it a number of times—we lost the ability to develop a potential resource that would have created thousands of jobs for decades and created huge revenues for governments. It is gone forever because we created this national conservation area, park, whatever it is, under the United Nations. It's gone forever, and you know—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: That was a provincial park.

• 1620

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Was that damn forest getting in the way?

Mr. Andy Burton: I'm just saying that once it's done, it's done. Once that MCA is created, we're not going to able to explore there.

I'm just saying, let's do the exploration first. If there's nothing there, hey, it's not a problem. That's all we're saying.

The Chair: I think the debating is clear on both sides. We've given our points of view. I don't think we'll advance them any more. The points are well taken on both sides.

(Amendments negatived)

(Clause 13 agreed to)

(On clause 14—Disposal of substances)

The Chair: Mrs. Bulte will speak to amendment G-15.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Burton will like this. This is a clarification amendment.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 15—Permits and authorization)

The Chair: Clause 15 has two amendments, G-16 and G-17.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Let's start with amendment G-16 on subclause 15(1).

The purpose of these amendments is to assure that any permits or authorizations that are issued by the superintendent must be consistent with both the interim management plan—

The Chair: Excuse me. Amendment G-16 was consequential to G-12, so we don't have to do it.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay. Sorry.

The Chair: It's okay, so we'll go on to G-17.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: There are two changes in clause 15—one in subclause 15(2) and one in subclause 15(3). We're inserting the word “fishing” before the word “licence”. The purpose is to make it clear that the only licences issued by Fisheries and Oceans Canada that are intended to be caught under these subclauses are fishing licences.

Mr. John Harvard: It's strictly technical.

Mr. Andy Burton: Are these the only licences that would be affected? Now a fishing licence—I'm quite clear, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. Are we certain there are no other licences that may be affected? I just don't know.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: We're making it clear that it's fishing licences and not...

Mr. Andy Burton: I understand that. That's fine. I don't have a problem with that.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: You're okay with that.

Mr. Andy Burton: Yes. It's just that there may be other licences involved that we're not aware of at this point.

Mr. Tom Lee: If I understand the question correctly, this applies strictly to fishing licences. There are other licences. For example, there could be licences for whale-watching regulations. This is fishing.

The Chair: I think our goal relates to fishing only.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 15 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 16—Regulations)

The Chair: Mrs. Bulte, G-18.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: We're proposing to put in a subclause 16(1.1), which will make it clear that:

(1.1) Regulations made under this section do not apply in respect of search and rescue operations carried out by any federal authority.

The Chair: That speaks for itself.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes, it does.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: On amendment G-19, Mrs. Bulte.

• 1625

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay, this is in clause 16, lines 36 to 43 on page 11.

We're proposing to completely delete subclause 16(6) because subclause 10(1) requires mandatory consultations already. Now that we've put in “shall”, subclause 16(6) is redundant. So we're taking that subclause out.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Clause 16, Mr. Burton, CA-28.

Mr. Andy Burton: We're looking to add a subclause 16(7). I guess it would become subclause 16(6) because subclause 16(6) has been deleted. It reads:

(6) All regulations made under this section shall, before taking effect, be pre-published in Part I of the Canada Gazette for a period of not less than 60 days and distributed by the Minister for consultation and comments to all stakeholders.

The rationale is that although the minister is forced to provide opportunities for consultation on the creation of MCAs, there are no consultations explicitly provided for when it comes to the power of cabinet to create regulations. It is customary to pre-publish proposed regulations in the Canada Gazette prior to making them law, and publishing them in the Canada Gazette, part II, for compliance.

This amendment speaks to the need for additional time for consultation on proposed regs. Instead of the 30-day review in the Canada Gazette, part I, we propose it be 60 days before becoming law. If any misunderstanding about a section of this bill is any indication of the department's ability to consult with and listen to the needs of those affected by MCAs, then a minimum of 60 days is needed for pre-publication of regulations, since it could have a dramatic impact on the livelihoods of fishermen and coastal communities.

The regulations can amend zoning, as in paragraph 16(1)(d) or harvest levels, as in paragraph 16(1)(c), not to mention user fees, as in paragraph 16(1)(g).

This amendment is a minimum to ensure those affected by the MCA are consulted. Again, there's just the need for consultation, and 60 days is not an unreasonable request to publish.

The Chair: Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would take his comments under advisement had we not just amended clause 10 with our government amendment 13, which requires that the minister shall also consult on regulations. So I think we've taken care of it in subclause 10(1).

It stipulates mandatory “shall consult” regulations. It's always a policy of the government to publish in the Canada Gazette. If we had not done that, I would... but we did, so I think we should be happy.

Mr. Andy Burton: I guess what we're looking for there is a little more time—60 days instead of 30 days.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I think it's redundant. It's policy. Regulations must be put in the Canada Gazette. But prior to that, under clause 10, we're already required to consult on the regulations. That's not standard.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 16 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 17—Exemption of ship and air movements)

The Chair: We will go to G-20. Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'm just trying to figure out how I'm going to say this. It's not that complicated, but a lot of changes have been made here to clause 17, by replacing lines 1 to 8 on page 12.

These changes have been made to accommodate the operational concerns of the Department of National Defence. Flexibility is needed to be able to write a regulation that would exempt movements of ships or aircraft from some provisions of the regulations, where it is necessary in the interests of Canadian sovereignty or security. So these have been prompted right from the Department of National Defence.

The Chair: Can you speak to it briefly, Mr. Lee, so everybody knows?

• 1630

Mr. Tom Lee: Basically, Defence came to us and said they felt they would be faced with a complex process for approval if they had a national emergency or the need to act in the interest of the sovereignty of Canada, and they didn't want to be faced with that.

It wasn't our intention that they be faced with that. Clearly, if national security is at stake, Canada should be able to act quickly and efficiently and go ahead and do it, recognizing they're in a marine conservation area. But that becomes a little bit secondary when you're dealing at that level. We didn't intend to get in the way, so we clarified the legislation so they could get a quick and easy exemption if they needed it.

Mr. John Harvard: Should we call the question?

The Chair: I'll call the question on amendment G-20.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 17 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 18 agreed to)

(On clause 19—Designation of enforcement officers)

The Chair: Mrs. Bulte, amendment G-21. The vote applies to amendment G-22.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Right now this clause provides that the minister may designate persons or classes of persons employed in the public service of Canada or by provincial, municipal, or local authority. This is an amendment that would put in “or an aboriginal government”. It clarifies that the minister has discretion to appoint enforcement officers who are employed by an aboriginal government.

A voice: To be more inclusive.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes, it's more inclusive.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 19 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 20—Certificate of designation and oath)

The Chair: Amendment G-22 on page 74 is also affected by this. It also goes forward.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: While this particular clause had the same type of amendment, it is a different clause. It's clause 20.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Are we considering G-23 or G-22?

The Chair: We're on G-22.

[English]

(Clause 20 as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 21 agreed to)

(On clause 22—Search and seizure)

The Chair: We have amendment CA-29, page 72.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: We're looking to delete lines 21 to 26 in subclause 22(3), which read:

A marine conservation area warden or enforcement officer may exercise any powers under subsection (1) without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would not be practical to obtain one.

We want this clause removed. We think it means that marine conservation wardens can exercise powers they would have only by virtue of a warrant without having one, because they're not able to obtain it for one reason or another. We feel it's an abuse of power and an abrogation of our rights as individuals to personal privacy. We just think this clause should be removed.

The Chair: Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chair, I guess the government's response is quite simple. This would delete standard powers that peace officers have in the enforcement of environmental statutes such as the Oceans Act and the National Parks Act.

Mr. John Harvard: So they already have that.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes. It would be inconsistent.

The Chair: Mr. Lee, do you want to add anything?

Mr. Tom Lee: No, I think that's primarily it. There are situations where the need to follow through on an enforcement activity must be done right on the spot, because the evidence may be disappearing as they're dealing with it.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm just wondering. Are we creating a new set of personnel here to monitor the marine conservation area, these marine conservation area wardens? And if we didn't, would they be fisheries officers?

Mr. Tom Lee: These are the same wardens as exist under the National Parks Act.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay.

The Chair: The question has been called.

• 1635

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 22 agreed to)

(On clause 23—Custody of things seized)

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I know everybody's anxious today, but we have to slow down a bit here on clause 23, which is the next one, because while we said that government amendment G-22 related to clause 20, it actually relates to clause 23.

Mr. John Harvard: So amendment G-22 is related to clause 23?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Amendment G-22 deals with clause 23, not clause 20.

Mr. John Harvard: Let's get to it.

The Chair: Well, it still carries anyway. It still carries, because it's for concordance.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I don't understand. How can it carry? Just for my own edification here, we're adding “aboriginal government”, but we're adding it to a different clause. I don't understand how it automatically carries when it's a different clause. Yes, we did agree to it. And while it's similar, with all due respect, it's with respect to a different clause.

The Chair: According to our legal experts, they say once you start amending it in one section, you have to be consistent in the other when it refers to... in other words, if you are going to introduce the notion that it has to be a municipality, a local government, or an aboriginal government, you can't have it in one clause and have it different in a later clause. It has to be consistent. That's the reason it carries.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay, that's fine. Thank you for that explanation. However, I just want to make it clear that—

The Chair: Madam, if you want—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: No, no, that's fine. But the fact is, amendment G-22 relates to clause 23.

The Chair: I realize that. We made a mistake so—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay, with the wrong amendment in the wrong clause.

The Chair: —we are going to change that to—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the explanation. I'm satisfied with it. I just want to make sure the change—

The Chair: On the record, we'll have it say amendment G-22 referred to clause 23, not clause 22.

A voice: And not clause 20.

The Chair: And not clause 20.

(Clause 23 as amended agreed to)

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay, now I'm a happy camper.

(Clause 24 to 28 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 29—Pollution clean-up)

The Chair: We have amendment G-23.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It relates to subclause 29(2), which currently states that the minister “may direct” the person. We are changing the precatory words “may direct” to mandatory wording, substituting “shall” for “may”.

The Chair: The question has been called.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 29 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 30—Application of Act to reserves)

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chair, I understand these amendments have been ruled out of order; however, I'm asking committee members' consent to be able to talk about them—not necessarily to vote on them, but to open them up for discussion—because they deal with consequential amendments to the National Parks Act. There is a problem with how one section has been opened, but before we can talk about it—I'm not suggesting we vote on it—I need unanimous consent from all members of the committee.

• 1640

The Chair: I'll ask our legal adviser to speak to it.

Mr. Philippe Méla (Legislative Clerk): That would be on the next amendment. We're on G-24.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'm sorry. You guys are going so fast. I was ahead of you.

The Chair: We're on G-24.

Clause 30 has already been changed. That's why it falls away.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay.

The Chair: We've still got to vote to delete it, okay? We've got to vote against that clause.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Delete clause 30.

Mr. Andy Burton: Mr. Chairman, could this not be deleted at report stage?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Philippe Méla: Whatever can be done now has to be done now.

The Chair: Could you explain to us how we deal with clause 30 to make it accord with proper procedure so that we won't be challenged?

Mr. Philippe Méla: You put the question and you just vote against the clause: “Shall clause 30 carry? No.”

(Clause 30 negatived)

(On clause 31)

The Chair: Amendment G-25 is—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I need unanimous consent to get the debate going, first of all, even though it's been ruled out of order. To discuss it we have to have unanimous consent, because it's been ruled out of order.

Mr. John Harvard: Why do we need to discuss it if it's out of order?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It's because these are consequential amendments to the National Parks Act. I can't even discuss this bill. If you look at clause 31—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: You get a 60-second preamble before you ask for unanimous consent.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: In clause 31 we want to make consequential amendments to other parts of the National Parks Act. My understanding is that the officials are saying, because only subsection 2(1) has been opened up in here—these are very technical reasons—we can't make them. Because only subsection 2(1) has been opened up, we can't make the other consequential amendments. I'm saying, but if we're making consequential amendments, we would like to make these. But I need unanimous consent to discuss this.

The Chair: Really what happens is that these other sections, such as subsections 4(2) and 5(2), are not open for discussion because of having been part of the published act. So we need unanimous consent to bring them in. Really, the purpose here is just to bring these two acts into balance. Otherwise we'll have to amend the other act and go through a whole procedure just for something that is strictly technical. With unanimous consent we can do it. It will avoid the technical procedures of going through changes in the National Parks Act. So if that is acceptable, then we could get unanimous consent and get all these clauses in.

Mr. John Harvard: Ask the question then.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Give me the consent.

The Chair: Well, we've got to find out if—

Mr. Grant McNally: This is really tempting, eh?

An hon. member: What?

Mr. Grant McNally: To deny consent—I mean for all the times it happens in the House.

An hon. member: You would have to have a good reason.

The Chair: Well, okay, Grant—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Please...

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to consider G-25e?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!

The Chair: So we can now consider G-25e.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: These are happily just consequential amendments to make sure the Canada National Parks Act conforms with the new changes we've made under the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, because they're both identical. That's the whole purpose of it. So I would ask that you approve this...

The Chair: Could I hear “Question” on amendment G-25e? All in favour...

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 31 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 32 to 41 inclusive agreed to)

• 1645

(Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to)

(On clause 1—Short title)

The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?

Sorry, we're going to go back to the preamble. No, “Shall clause 1 carry?” is first, according to this.

A voice: And then comes the preamble.

The Chair: The preamble comes after clause 1.

Mr. Andy Burton: We have some amendments to the preamble, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On the preamble)

The Chair: We've got a series of amendments on the preamble, so we go back to the start of our book, page 1, amendment CA-1.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: I'm trying to get all this paper in order here.

We'd like to amend the preamble in page 2, at lines 4 to 11, to read as follows:

involve federal and provincial ministers and agencies, affected aboriginal organizations,

—then add: “coastal communities, fishing organizations,” and then go on—

and other persons and bodies, including bodies established under land claims agreements, in the effort to establish and maintain the representative system—

An hon. member: You're in the wrong section.

Mr. Andy Burton: Am I?

The Chair: Sorry, hold it a minute. You have the floor. We're talking about CA-1.

Mr. Andy Burton: I was talking about CA-2. I'm sorry.

Replace page 1, in lines 5 to 10, with the following:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to adopting the precautionary principle in the conservation and management of the marine environment so that, where there are threats of

—and we add—

serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty is not used as a reason for postponing cost-effective preventive measures;

This new wording will reflect what is included in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the policy approved by government in the Rio declaration on the environment in 1992. This was also proposed as a needed change by the parliamentary researcher, and I would urge you to support it. It's just to get it more in line with the existing precautionary principles that have been stated in the past.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: First of all, what Mr. Burton proposes right now for the language in the preamble would take it out of being protected legislation. That's what it is, and that's what the preamble is about.

But I have to say, Mr. Burton, you proceed not without trying because you tried to put “cost-effective” in Bill C-48, and it was amended at that time; we took the “cost-effective”.

We have to remember this is protected area legislation, and if we're waiting again for “serious, irreversible” harm—remember, we had the same problem with “severity” before—we have to look at what the overall intent and purpose of the legislation is.

Mr. Andy Burton: Mr. Chairman, if the Environmental Protection Act is satisfied with that wording, why would it not be satisfactory for this bill? Or are you going to change that too?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: That's not my mandate. This one is.

Mr. Andy Burton: Well, it's a reasonable question.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I don't know. I think we could ask—

The Chair: Excuse me. Mr. McNally is first.

Mr. Grant McNally: I would just echo those comments: if there's another piece of legislation, we should be consistent with it, as we have tried to be throughout this bill. Some of the amendments to this bill could be reflected in other bills that have been done too.

The Chair: You propose to use our other pieces of legislation and treaties that include this wording.

Yes, Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I think we have to remember, when we're talking about “full” scientific knowledge, those words are dealing with ecological integrity. This is an act that does both: preserves ecological integrity along with sustainability. It's not the same as an environmental statute. So when you want “full” and you want the onus... That's my opinion. I may be wrong. I'll defer to the experts here.

The Chair: Ms. Katz.

Ms. Susan Katz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1650

CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is a statute of general application. The proposed marine conservation areas act is a statute that would have a particular mandate to establish and manage protected areas. The definition of the precautionary principle we see in the preamble would not be inconsistent with CEPA. It simply reflects the fact that the particular mandate in the context of this particular bill is with regard to establishing protected heritage areas.

Mr. Andy Burton: It just seems odd to me, Mr. Chairman, that all through this whole discussion we've been talking about consistency with other acts, yet now it doesn't matter. I don't quite understand that. If it's good enough for CEPA, it should be good enough for Bill C-10.

The Chair: In fairness, we were not talking about consistency with CEPA, we were talking about consistency with the parks act as far as...

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I've spent some time with researchers on CEPA, and this does not contradict it. It simply complements it. We talk about seriously reversing environmental damage; it's okay when it's reversible, but it's not okay when it's irreversible.

Mr. Chairman, call for the vote.

Mr. Grant McNally: I have a question for Ms. Katz.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: This is not to delay things, but you mention protected heritage areas. Are there other bills that discuss protected heritage areas? Is the language in this bill consistent with those other acts, or do we know?

Ms. Susan Katz: The only other statute would be the Canada National Parks Act.

Mr. Grant McNally: Is the wording in this preamble consistent with that preamble?

Ms. Susan Katz: In fact, the Canada National Parks Act does not have a preamble.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay.

The Chair: The question has been called.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: On amendment G-1, Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I would like to draw the committee's attention to the bottom of page 1 of the bill, line 34. We are simply inserting “through the zoning of” after “provide opportunities”. Those are the new words we're including. We're simply making it clear that provision for ecologically sustainable use will be created through zoning.

The Chair: All in favour?

[Translation]

I'm sorry.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I have a question. Where are we exactly? I seem to be a little confused.

The Chair: We're on amendment G-1f.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I see, because it's not the same in English. For my own personal information, you are substituting the words "le zonage de ces aires" for "permettre l'utilisation durable, du point de vue écologique". That isn't right?

The Chair: No. We're on line 2 of page 2 of the French.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Line 2 of page 2?

A member: That's right.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I see, where is says “permettre l'utilisation durable, du point de vue écologique...”

A hon. member: And this would be amended by substituting “par le zonage de ces aires”.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I see.

The Chair: Good.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I've just understood the amendment and the addition of the words "par le zonage".

The Chair: Fine.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Then I have no further questions.

[English]

The Chair: All in favour of amendment G-1?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: We now go on to amendment G-2.

Mr. Andy Burton: Mr. Chairman, does that not affect—

The Chair: Amendment G-2 affects CA-2. CA-2 cannot be put if amendment G-2 goes forward.

You go ahead, Andy.

Mr. Andy Burton: I've got the right page this time, Mr. Chairman. On page 2, lines 4 to 11 are to be amended to read as follows:

involve federal and provincial ministers and agencies, affected aboriginal organizations, coastal communities, fishing organizations and other persons and bodies included

• 1655

We're adding “fishing organizations”, the rationale being that including those words in the preamble of the act sets out the specific need to consult a group that has been given its right to fish from the days of the Magna Carta and as set out in the Constitution of Canada. I'm sure you'll recall that one of our witnesses last week brought that point up. To deny this inclusion would be to deny specific consultation with a group whose livelihood depends on harvesting a resource of the ocean. Their consultation on the location, regulations, or zoning of an MCA could be most beneficial to the minister and could ensure unnecessary battles are avoided.

When people are included in the process of determining MCAs, their interest in and attitude toward them change for the better. Given that, it is highly recommended, in light of the testimony heard last week from fishing organizations, that they be included as recognized stakeholders. What we want to do is add “coastal communities” and “fishing organizations”.

The Chair: Well, the words “coastal communities” are already there. You're just adding “fishing organizations”.

Mr. Andy Burton: That's fine; we can live with “fishing organizations”.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: May I, Mr. Chair, respond to this.

We did talk about this last night. I remember it because I particularly asked a question about it. It was the BC Seafood Alliance, I believe, who was on the video conference, and they specifically talked about the inclusion. I specifically asked, did the lady not think that they were covered under “and other persons and bodies”? I believe she said yes at that time, but they'd kind of gotten their backs up because she said—I'm just paraphrasing—why mention certain persons and not other persons? I think we risk doing the same thing if we now put in fishing organizations; what other group is going to get mad at us because we haven't included them?

I would submit that we should leave well enough alone. I believe they are covered as “other persons”, and I believe the witness actually concurred with that. To them it was just, why not us? Let's not perpetuate this “why not us?”

Mr. John Harvard: I think the words “appropriate persons and bodies” in amendment G-2 is pretty well a catch-all.

Mr. Andy Burton: Then why would you mention, Mr. Chairman, aboriginal groups, for instance? Are they not “appropriate persons and bodies” too?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It's my turn. Then why would you say “coastal communities”?

Mr. Andy Burton: I realize you can't have everybody in there.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: That's the whole point.

Mr. Andy Burton: Given that it's a marine conservation act and that fishing is obviously absolutely reliant upon marine resources, I think it's only reasonable to ask that they be included.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Burton, if I may respond—and we'll stop this sort of rally—then you should have included the oil and gas development industry too. At what point do you stop?

Mr. Andy Burton: Perhaps I should have. I'm trying to be reasonable here.

A voice: He's trying to be reasonable.

Mr. Andy Burton: I just want to ravage the bottom of the ocean.

Mr. John Harvard: I would think that “affected coastal communities” would reflect the concerns of the people who make a living from fishing.

Mr. Andy Burton: Possibly. There are a lot of fishing boats that travel from the lower mainland, for instance, to the north coast, but that's an aside.

A point was just made to me, though, that the Oceans Act was just amended, and I believe they included fishing communities in the wording.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: That had specifically to do with fishing licences.

Mr. Grant McNally: Well, it's not this act. He's talking about a different act.

The Chair: Mr. Lee, do you want to comment on this?

Mr. Tom Lee: The major problem you face is that you do get an endless number of requests. Clearly, the fishing community would be consulted. There's absolutely no doubt about that. As the gentleman pointed out, they've been part of the history and tradition of these areas forever. They're still there, they're going to be there, and they will be included in consultations.

The Chair: We're going to take a vote on G-2 first.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We don't need to take a vote on CA-2. It falls away.

Shall the preamble as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

[Translation]

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: On division.

The Chair: Mr. Burton, would you also like the record to show that you oppose the amendment? You would?

[English]

Shall I report the bill with amendments to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay, the bill will be reported with amendments to the House.

• 1700

Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I think this completes our work.

I'd like to thank all the members. I know we lost a lot of votes, but at the same time I think it was a fair session, and we thank you very much for all your help.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I echo that as well. Thank you to all members of the committee for their input and for their amendments. Their representation is great.

Mr. Andy Burton: This is my first experience in committee at this level, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to say that it's certainly been interesting and that I enjoyed it. It would have been nice to win a few more, but I—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: You won a couple there.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.