CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 6, 1997

• 0914

[Translation]

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to get this meeting underway.

[English]

This is not a coup. I am trying to be helpful. When the chair re-enters the room, I will abdicate.

[Translation]

Today's meeting has been called to study Bill C-7. We are studying Bill C-7 and starting with clause 1. We will then ask our guests to give their presentations.

[English]

Mr. Lee, would you get the proceedings under way, introduce us to your colleagues and march us through Bill C-7?

[Translation]

Mr. Tom Lee (Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to introduce to you Mr. Laurent Tremblay, who works for Parks Canada as the Director General for the Quebec region. He has been working on this issue for a long time; he is our point man in this area.

• 0915

[English]

We also have with us Mr. Jean Rhéaume, who works with the Minister of Justice and has been responsible for drafting the bill that is before you today.

We wish to begin, Mr. Chairman, with a short presentation of approximately 10 minutes by Mr. Laurent Tremblay, which will give you an overview of the file.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurent Tremblay (Executive Director for Quebec, Parks Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to give a short presentation on the main points of the bill, in the order that the slides are presented on the screen.

We are talking here about a federal-provincial agreement signed in 1990. As a follow-up to the federal-provincial agreement arrived at on April 6, 1990, with the province of Quebec, it is necessary to pass a law to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park.

The marine park represents the richness and diversity of a natural and cultural area. It has long been recognized by local and international communities that this area needs increased protection. It is the habitat for a number of marine mammal species, in particular the St. Lawrence beluga, a threatened species, but also a major attraction that has made this area an important tourist destination.

Since the two governments have agreed to exercise their respective powers collaboratively as far as possible, the two governments must, within their respective jurisdictions, pass the necessary legislation for the creation and management of the park.

The provincial government continues to administer the sea bed and the underground resources, while the federal government is responsible for the water column covering them and exercises its legislative authority over the marine resources and shipping activities within the park boundaries.

In 1990, the two levels of government, provincial and federal, agreed to proceed within the limits of their respective jurisdiction, to adopt legislative measures to protect the park resources.

[English]

The first purpose of the St. Lawrence Marine Park legislation is to establish a marine park to increase the level of ecosystem protection. It will increase, for the benefit of present and future generations, the level of protection of the ecosystems of a representative portion of the Saguenay fjord and the St. Lawrence estuary for conservation purposes, while encouraging their use for educational, recreational and scientific purposes. The second purpose is to provide a legislative base for the administration of the park, including regulation-making authority for areas not covered by other federal statutes.

The proposed legislation provides a comprehensive legislative base for the management of federal responsibilities. The proposed legislation will apply to resource protection and park use activities not especially addressed by other federal legislation. This bill will complement existing federal statutes such as the Fisheries Act, the Canadian environmental acts, the Migratory Birds Convention act, and the Canada Shipping Act. Therefore, the proposed legislation, together with existing laws, will enable the federal government to provide strong and complete protection for the park's ecosystem as well as management of access and use.

With respect to legislative requirements, there are two separate but complementary statutes, one provincial and the other federal. The seabed is under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec, but the activities in or on the water column, including fisheries and shipping, are under federal jurisdiction.

Since the seabed is under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec, but the activities in or on the water column, including fisheries and shipping, are under federal jurisdicition, the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park will be established by passing two separate but complementary statues, one provincial and the other federal. The concept is a single park under two separate jurisdictions, based on hand-in-glove legislation.

• 0920

[Translation]

Here are the main aspects of the proposed legislation. Five points are covered: the establishment of the park; the administrative regime for the park; legislative authority; penalty clauses; and setting of penalties.

The proposed legislation defines the park boundaries and outlines the zone categories within the marine park; provides mechanisms and guidelines for expanding or reducing the area of the marine park; gives the minister the appropriate authorities to manage the park and conclude agreements with other ministers; provides for the development of a management plan and for opportunities for public consultations; gives the power to issue permits for the control of activities; grants the necessary powers to park wardens, peace officers and enforcement officers; provides for the creation of a harmonization committee to provide managers of the federal and provincial governments with a forum for harmonizing their administrative and operational activities; provides for the creation of a coordinating committee to give members of the community a forum for expressing their opinions and advising the federal and provincial ministers responsible for the marine park; provides the Governor-in-Council the legislative authority to make regulations on, among other things, the protection, control and management of the marine park.

In conclusion, I would simply like to add that the present legislation is the result of a consensus in the various administrative regions concerned and, for the development of the management plan, of considerable consultation on the park boundaries and development proposals.

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): Do you want to question Mr. Tremblay or wait until all the witnesses have spoken?

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I had a couple of questions that arose from Mr. Tremblay's presentation. Should I ask them now?

The Chairman: Mr. Lee, are you going to speak as well, or only Mr. Tremblay?

Mr. Tom Lee: The only item I would offer, if you wish, is that we have a representative here from the Minister of Justice. He would be pleased to quickly highlight some of the legislative elements, if the committee so wishes.

The Chairman: Maybe we should finish this, then, before we start the questions.

By all means, Mr. Rhéaume.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Rhéaume (Legal Counsel, Department of Justice): I can speak in English or French.

The Chairman: It is your choice.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: I will speak in French then. Would people prefer me to comment on each clause or should I focus on the aspects that may be the most important?

The Chairman: At this stage, I think it would be better for us to focus on the most important aspects because we are going to be studying the bill clause by clause later. You will no doubt be available at that time.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: Probably, yes. No problem.

The Chairman: Are the members of the committee in agreement that we should look only at the most important points?

Some Hon. Members: Fine.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: Let us look first at clause 3:

3. This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.

This provision has been part of federal environment statutes for a number of years. It is essential if the federal Crown—the government and the departments—is to be bound by this legislation.

If, for example, a boat belonging to National Defence or an airplane belonging to a department is expected to be in compliance when it travels in or above the marine park, this provision is essential. It is found in a number of federal statutes, for example in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. We could give you a list of at least 56 statutes.

The equivalent provision to clause 3 in the provincial legislation is section 23. Quebec has understood the importance of this provision.

Clause 4 lays out the purpose of the Act. It puts the Act in the context of sustainable development by mentioning present and future generations. We are trying to protect the marine park not only for the present but also for the future.

• 0925

The three key words in this section are protection, conservation and use. This is not a marine park with no access for the public. On the contrary, it is open to the public and can be used. However, we do want to protect its resources. That is why this provision establishes very clearly the purpose of the Act, which involves three aspects: protection, conservation and use.

In the Quebec bill, the equivalent is given in the first whereas.

Clause 5 creates the marine park and indicates that its boundaries are outlined in the schedule. The schedule could be changed if the marine park was to be expanded or reduced, as we will see later.

Clause 5, subclause 2, mentions four types of zones. In the provision on regulatory authority, you will see that the extent of the zones will be set by regulation. The equivalent in the Quebec law that has already been adopted is found in section 2.

It should be noted in clause 6, in the part entitled "Change of Park Boundaries," that an agreement is always needed with the province in order to change the boundaries of the marine park. It is absolutely essential. And not only must the government be consulted, but the public as well.

In Quebec, the content of subsection 1 of clause 6 is found in section 4 and paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 3. Subclause 2 has its counterpart in section 5 of the Quebec Act.

The Chairman: If I understand correctly, Mr. Rhéaume, subclause 2 stipulates that only public lands in Quebec can be used, and not private lands. Is that right?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: That is right. It must be kept in mind that, here, the term "public lands" applies to the sea bed. This is the bottom of the two rivers involved.

The Chairman: I see. The equivalent is found in which section of the Quebec legislation?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: Section 5 of the Quebec legislation says that the marine park must only cover public lands in Quebec.

Clause 7 deals with changing the park boundaries. I would like to point out the end of subclause 1, where it says: "to reduce the area of the park, or of any zone of the park."

There is no need to come before the House of Commons for a reduction of less than one square kilometre in a type 3 or 4 zone. And here is the reason: if you read the description given in the schedule, you will see that the borders are very often measured from wharves. If the wharf is extended, the boundaries of the park may be changed a little bit, by a few square metres. The idea is not to bother the House of Commons each time a wharf is modified or something of that type happens, which could have an impact on the boundaries of the marine park.

Some Hon. Members: Thank you.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: At the same time, Parliament should have its say if the reduction is significant. If, for example, Quebec and the public ask for the marine park to be reduced by half of its area, Parliament should have its say. The Quebec legislation contains an equivalent to this provision in section 4, subsection (2).

With respect to clause 8, I would just like to mention that its equivalent is found in section 6 of the Quebec legislation. A minister must be responsible to Parliament for the park. The equivalent of subclause (3) of clause 8 is found in section 10 of the Quebec legislation.

• 0930

I always mention the equivalents because it is important to keep in mind that the statutes, as far as possible, in this case federal and provincial, must be in harmony. Otherwise, their management may turn out to be very difficult.

Clause 9 deals with the management plan. The equivalent of subclause (1) is found in section 7 of the Quebec legislation. Subclause (2) is found in section 8 of the Quebec legislation and subclause (3), in section 9 of the Quebec legislation.

It is important to remember that, as stipulated in subclause (2) of clause 9, the plan must be reviewed at least every seven years. When it is possible, this can be done within four or five years. However, since the public must be consulted and Quebec's agreement must be obtained before the marine park management plan is amended, we felt that a seven-year term was more realistic. The same thing, of course, applies to Quebec. It has a maximum of seven years to review the park with our consent.

Again in the context of sustainable development, subclause (3) of clause 9 calls for public participation.

Under clause 10, the minister may issue permits. The equivalent can be found in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 11 of the Quebec legislation.

The explanation for this provision is that there are already permits issued. For example, boats on the St. Lawrence already have navigation permits. If, however, a need was felt at some point to restrict boat traffic because too many boats were coming too close to whales, belugas and other species in the ecosystem, permits could be issued requiring them to take a different course. We can see on the map that at least half of the river is not covered by the marine park. Normally, in fact, boats travel in that half that is not part of the marine park because of the depth of the river.

But if, for one reason or another, boats were always coming within the boundaries of the marine park, it would certainly be possible to issue special permits allowing travel in that area. Of course, we are not talking about ocean liners but, for example, cruise ships. If I remember correctly, there are about 60 boats that take people to observe the belugas in various areas of the marine park. That creates a lot of traffic.

Clause 11 sets out the powers and duties of the marine park superintendent, who is the on-site manager. It corresponds to section 13 of the Quebec statute.

Clauses 12, 13 and 14 contain enforcement provisions. Clauses 12 and 13 set out the powers of park wardens and enforcement officers. These correspond to section 14 of the Quebec statute. Park wardens and enforcement officers are defined in section 2 of the bill. An enforcement officer can be a provincial park warden. The idea here is to delegate such powers, or at least grant them in equal measure, to provincial wardens in order to reduce the costs of enforcing the legislation.

Clause 15 provides for the establishment of the harmonization committee, and corresponds to section 15 of the Quebec statute. Essentially, the committee's role is to manage the park in conjunction with the superintendent. It has a wide-ranging role, including such aspects as ecosystem protection, planning, management and consultation. In other words, it is the administrative authority. The harmonization committee is also responsible for preparing draft regulations, as provided for in subclause (2), in consultation with Quebec.

Clause 16 stipulates that:

16., (1) A coordinating committee is hereby established to make recommendations to the Minister and the Quebec Minister on the measures to be taken in order to carry out the objectives of the management plan.

• 0935

This subclause corresponds to section 16 of the Quebec statute, while subclauses (2) and (3) correspond to section 17 of the Quebec statute.

Clause 17 contains provisions on regulatory powers. Subclauses (a), (b) and (c) provide for protection and management of natural and cultural resources in the marine park; subclause (d) provides for public protection; and subclauses (e) to (j) deal with park zoning. At a given moment, one zone may need better protection than others and could be declared a full protection zone. Alternatively, sailboats and jetskis belonging to anyone may be given access to a different zone.

Subclauses (k), (l) and (m) establish a system of permits based on the user-pay principle. That means users must pay for special privileges, or for services that other visitors of the marine park don't get.

Subclauses (n) and (o) provide for implementation, while subclause (p) establishes the conditions under which aircraft may access the park. The federal government has sole authority to legislate access for aircraft or marine craft to the park. We had to deal with this, because Quebec could not.

For example, if a helicopter, hydroplane or boat gets too close to belugas or whales and frightens them, the animals may be disturbed, and may even become dangerous. So we have to have the power to regulate. Obviously, this is just regulatory power.

These provisions are established by the Governor-in-Council. If other departments—such as the Coast Guard or Transport—have specific interests, they can always put pressure on the Governor-in-Council. But we wanted regulatory power.

Clauses 18 through 23 are enforcement provisions, such as those found in other pieces of legislation. They are included for a very simple reason: there is no point in regulating or legislating if one has no authority to enforce the legislation. So we reproduced the provisions found in many other statutes, particularly those dealing with environment or wildlife protection, in order to stipulate enforcement measures.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, PQ): [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: Yes. I did not indicate them very clearly here. However, clause 20 corresponds to sections 19 and 20 of the Quebec statute. Their procedure is much less elaborate than ours, but I would imagine it is still quite efficient.

With respect to clause 23, I'll just say a quick word about ticket offences. When you park illegally, a parking warden can issue a ticket. In the same way, if you violate some regulatory provisions, such as driving your jetski through a zone where they are prohibited, we want to be able to issue a ticket without having to drag the offender to court, where he would plead guilty. Such tickets will be authorized by regulation pursuant to clause 17.

Clause 24 contains a provision also found in other federal statutes. When someone chooses to pay repeated tickets rather than comply with the federal statutes, we want the Minister—or the government—to have authority to request an injunction in order to prevent such offences. And if the person commits another repeat offence, he is deemed guilty of contempt of court and liable to a prison sentence.

• 0940

This is rare. However, in Quebec there have been occasions in professional law when an injunction was required to prevent someone from paying the fine and continuing to commit to the same offence.

If you want an example of this type of provision in a federal statute, take a look at sections 135 and 137 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Clause 26...

The Chairman: Is there a corresponding provision in the Quebec statute?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: I have to admit I didn't check. I would think so, however. If memory serves me correctly, I think there is. I could look for it a little later, but generally this does not pose a problem.

The Chairman: Listen, this is not...

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: They could still do it.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: They could still do it.

As I was saying earlier, clause 26 is there because many permits are already issued as it is. For example, there are permits for boats to sail on the St-Lawrence; there are permits for air transportation; there are other permits, too. All those permits will remain in effect throughout their validity. If we decide that permit conditions have to be modified in order to protect the park and its resources, these new conditions could be established through regulations. They would apply to new permits. There is a corresponding provision in section 25 of the Quebec statute.

It was preferable to have the Act come into effect by Order in Council, as stipulated in section 27 of the Quebec statute as well. The same approach was used for the Environmental Assessment Act and other statutes. In this case, as in others, it is best to have regulations come into effect at the same time as the Act, rather than several months later. So as soon as the Quebec and federal regulations are ready, the Act will come into force at the same time, and the marine park will be well protected.

If you have any questions...

The Chairman: Before we go any further, could you tell me how far we've got with the regulations, have we already started on them? Has Quebec—whose Act was passed almost a year ago—done any work on the regulations?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: The Quebec statute was passed last June. I don't know how far they've got with their regulations. I also don't know how quickly ours are coming along, but we are working on them.

Let's not forget that the regulations affect all kinds of activities. There are a vast number of activities taking place in the marine park, such as fishing, boating, shipping, sailing, jet-skying, and so on.

Obviously, we must not forget that the regulations which are already in effect continue to apply. That is the important point: as long as they are not replaced, they continue to apply.

The Chairman: Agreed.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, do you have any questions for Mr. Tremblay, Mr. Lee, or Mr. Rhéaume?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes, I do.

I thank the officials very much for coming today. This is a very helpful start to our deliberations on this bill.

The first question I have is this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the first marine park we are establishing under Parks Canada?

Mr. Tom Lee: It is. Let me give you just a bit of history, because the marine park system is like a child that is just starting.

The association with Parks Canada begins with the Fathom Five park on the Bruce Peninsula, which is an underwater park. That is currently being administered under the National Parks Act. We have it tucked in there on a temporary basis.

In Pacific Rim there are two water components that function as part of that park. So that's also part of a piece at this point in time.

• 0945

Pursuant to the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area, as part of that, there's a provision in that agreement to establish a national marine park pursuant to that agreement. Then there's the Saguenay part.

So you have those pieces that are kind of part of the beginning, the foundation, if you like, of what will become a larger system of nationally protected areas on the oceans and Great Lakes that constitute the marine or water component, or that are parallel to the land associated with the national parks system.

So you have those four pieces. As the minister indicated to you yesterday, we will be bringing forth some comprehensive legislation that will, in the future, constitute an umbrella. This is so that we don't have to bring forth individual pieces on a continuing basis.

For those of you who were on the committee last year, you'll know that Canada released the long-range systems plan for national marine conservation areas. I should say that Canada is the only country in the world to have taken that step and state its intention to provide a representative system of protected areas that produce the water component.

Basically, Mr. Abbott, what I'm saying is that you have some pieces that started some time ago. There are basically four of them, and they're not yet under an umbrella. So that's fundamentally where we are.

Mr. Jim Abbott: The direction I'm going with my questioning is to have a clearer understanding of the relationship.... You mentioned Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area, where you would have perhaps a protected area in Hecate Strait, where the issue is fishing. You're out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. On the St. Lawrence you have a totally different dynamic. You have all sorts of industries upstream creating problems that occur, or at least originate, well outside of the park, but which will nonetheless have a severe impact on, for example, the beluga and vegetation in that area. There are the other examples that you gave.

What I'm trying to drive at here is this: what kind of impact, in your judgment, will this legislation we're considering under Bill C-7 have on other potentially protected areas or future marine park areas? I'm just trying to make sure that if we're indeed setting a template here, the template will fit the other concerns in the other areas.

Mr. Tom Lee: Let me outline for you what I would see as the key elements of the template, recognizing that there could be some variations as you move from place to place.

The key elements of the template are as follows. One is what I would call a mandate-type clause. These areas are dedicated to the conservation and protection of a natural resource. They are dedicated also to their use and enjoyment, because there is a recreational component to it.

The second element of the template—this is vis-à-vis national parks—is that while the resources of national parks are fully protected from any type of commercial use and are intended to remain in their wild state, the core element here of the marine conservation areas is that they do permit a variety of ongoing commercial uses along with the protected areas inside them. So in the zoning system, there will be some areas that are fully protected, and others where commercial use would take place.

On the commercial-use side, I guess the item that goes with that is the concept of models of sustainable use. In other words, it doesn't mean it's going to be commercial practices as always, good or bad or whatever, but to see if in these areas we can't exhibit some leadership that will help others. I use the phrase “become models” of sustainable use. That is part of the template.

• 0950

The third part of the template is the zoning element. That will be consistent. The type of zoning proposed in this bill we would expect to see reflected in any comprehensive act. So the concept of zoning areas of the water column, some protected, some for multiple use and so on, is also part of the template.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Lee, on that particular one, before you go on to your next point, should we be concerned that although four different types of zones are designated and numbered, I believe, in this legislation there is absolutely no attempt to make any description of them? In other words, I'm concerned about the blank cheque. I don't think the committee or the House should be into micro-management of the park, but I'm wondering if we should be concerned that there is somewhat of a blank cheque. The zoning you just referred to is referred to only by number, not by any indication of the designation of the way the park would see it.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: Documents published by Parks Canada establish precisely what those terms would mean on a day-to-day basis, activities allowed and so on.

I may also make a small comment on the previous question. This bill is not intended to have effects outside the park. If you have industries or whatever which pollute the St. Lawrence and the pollution comes up to the limits of the park, that would be a question of enforcing the current legislation, for example the Fisheries Act or the ocean dumping provision in CEPA. Again, the effect of the bill is not intended to be outside the park. If the problem is from outside the park we should use other acts.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Good. Thank you.

Mr. Tom Lee: Just to continue with the main elements of the template.... This is a key element.

The next element I would mention as part of the template is the need for the federal government to be able to manage the water in the sense of surface use of that water and the activities that would occur underneath the surface of the water, such as diving. That would be a key national thing which would apply throughout.

The regulatory regime would basically be common across Canada as we bring these pieces together.

The final element I would mention has to do with land. In the comprehensive system, national marine parks do not need to have an adjacent upland component. In some cases it simply may not exist. You may not require it. It could in some cases be provided and part of the park, or it could be provided by another jurisdiction, such as in the case here, where Quebec chose as part of this to establish an upland conservation portion. On that one we will see some variability as we move from site to site. It won't always be consistent.

Generally, because most of the national marine conservation areas will occur in the oceans, in which the federal government owns the seabed, generally the seabed would be under the control and administration of the federal government. If it is not, you would still need, as has been done here, to get that totally in harmony with the rest of the management of the site. In this case, while the seabed is currently a part of the province of Quebec and it remains part of the province of Quebec, as part of this agreement Quebec has chosen to harmonize totally as if that were federal land, if you like, in terms of management.

I think, Mr. Abbott, those are the key elements of the template, in a broad way.

• 0955

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like to get some further details so as to understand the difference between the clause dealing with the coordinating committee which has power to make regulations and clause 17. Subclause 15(2) says that:

(2) The harmonization committee also is to harmonize draft regulations to be made under this Act and draft regulations that are to be made under the law of the province of Quebec...

Should I understand this to mean that under clause 17, the federal government would be regulating pursuant to a section which, I imagine, would be found in the Quebec Act? Will the federal government make the regulations and then, afterwards, the coordinating committee will try to see if all this works together?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: No, it's the opposite. The coordinating committee is constituted, as you know, of representatives of regional county municipalities, environmental groups and scientific groups. The objectives of this group consist in analyzing all the aspects of management, research and development, and to suggest to the Minister a certain number of measures relating to these activities.

Adding the harmonization element over and above this was not aimed at creating any interference between the two, but rather at recognizing that basically, there are two acts and that it is essential for both levels of government to be able to harmonize the impact of these amendments in their respective jurisdictions.

As we mentioned earlier, in drafting these two bills, we tried to make maximum use of what was already in existence, so as not to create any redundancies. So, it will be essential, for instance when proposing a request to amend the regulations, that my colleague from Quebec bring together the departments involved, do his own internal consultations and come to confirm to me that he has done his consultations. I will assure him that I also have done my consultations and will propose to him a way to harmonize the new regulations or applications for amendment, whether it be for zoning, development of new activities or the enforcement of the Act.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Rhéaume, what is the equivalent to clause 15 in the Quebec Act?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: Paragraph 15(2) and clause 17 of the federal bill are equivalent to section 18.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Section 18 in Quebec?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: Yes.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Lee, I'm very interested in this park. It sounds like a wonderful new opportunity for us to have some protected environments.

I wonder about commercial use. You say the marine conservation areas will continue to permit commercial use. I just want to understand what the nature of those would be. Could you give me a range of commercial uses that would, in your estimation, fit into an area like this? What would absolutely not fit in?

Mr. Tom Lee: There is a very clear distinction between water and land in this respect. The seabed is conserved. You would not have mining activities taking place on the seabed—gas, oil, that type of thing. That would not be permitted. However, the commercial aspects of the fishing industry would continue. Clearly, everyone will understand the problem here is that fish, seals, or whales will not stay inside those boundaries. We have to consider them in their larger management environment.

We have not said anything would not be permitted. Obviously we could make restrictions and would if it were in the interest of conservation.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill, do you have other questions? You can always come back after.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm just thinking. That's fine. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): That's fine, thank you.

The Chairman: On the Liberal side? Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Saada, Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the presentation, gentlemen. I have just two or three questions.

You have made reference to the fact that the Auditor General suggests it's a cumbersome process to have Parliament approve parks. I had my stint on public accounts, and we used to challenge the Auditor General, when he found fault, to suggest a better way if he had one. Did he do that in this instance?

• 1000

Mr. Tom Lee: He didn't, although I believe the Auditor General is aware of the nature of the proposal that we hope to bring forth when we bring forth some amendments to the National Parks Act to streamline those. While he didn't make suggestions, I think he's aware of some of the items we considered, which, as the minister indicated yesterday, she hopes to bring forth quickly in the spring as amendments and will make this process much more efficient without reducing accountability to Parliament.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Is there any thought of a marine component to the park around Nain in Labrador—is it Torngat Mountains Park?—or is it too far inland?

Mr. Tom Lee: No. As a matter of fact, it is right on the ocean in the northern part of Labrador.

Could I just ask a question?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Sure.

Mr. Tom Lee: I just want to give you the right answer.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Do you want my other short question?

Mr. Tom Lee: Sure.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: The Fathom Five Park is well known in my part of Ontario, up around Tobermory, the Bruce Peninsula. Is there Ontario government involvement in that park or is it totally federally run?

Mr. Tom Lee: It is totally federal. The Fathom Five Park and the Bruce Peninsula park—so you have a national park and a marine park together—originate from two original provincial parks. One was Cyprus Lake provincial park, and the Fathom Five provincial park. Those came into the national park, and the national park has been expanded through acquisitions by the federal government to enlarge the land base there. So the origins of Fathom Five were a smaller provincial park, supplemented by additional federal lands that have been acquired over time.

Torngats is not yet established, as you know. It is a proposal that we hope to see come forward. The discussions have led to a working definition of the land area at this time that would be included. While discussions have occurred about including some of the marine component, no conclusive decision has been made. But there is the opportunity.... The discussions have taken place around some very large fiords that form part of the park and would very naturally constitute a marine component either of the park or of a separate national marine conservation area at the appropriate time.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Those questions may not have seemed totally relevant, but they were to me. I'm trying to get at what, if anything, in this agreement is precedent setting. I don't need to get that answer now, but I hope it will come out in the discussions.

I'll pass to other colleagues.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Saada, Mr. Godfrey and Ms. Tremblay.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you very much for your presence and your participation today; it is extremely important for us.

I would like to know something that is elementary for you, but not for me. In the beginning, the park was supposed to be half its present size. Certain things happened and it was made larger. How can we draw such a straight boundary? What criteria apply here?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: The criterion is the row of buoys.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Buoys used for commercial navigation?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: That's right. In this part of the St. Lawrence, we have two channels. During his presentation, Mr. Rhéaume mentioned that one section was used more, namely the section on the south side, for commercial navigation, and also the section on the north side.

Many elements contributed to the present situation. Other considerations also came into play. In the beginning, as you mentioned, the park boundaries were to end at the mouth of the Saguenay; that was the proposal that had been agreed upon in 1990. During our consultations and meetings with various stakeholder groups, we were told that what we had before us was not necessarily representative of the ecosystem as a whole.

• 1005

There are extremely interesting things to see outside the Saguenay, which complement the activities that go on there and are extremely interesting as far as tourism is concerned.

So we prepared two or three proposals, one of them even going as far as the south shore. However, because of commercial fishing, hunting and coverage of the territory, it was determined, in co-operation with the stakeholders as well as the provincial government, that we should limit ourselves to the centre.

The area of the territory, which at the outset was 700 square kilometres, went all the way up to 1,200 square kilometres. If we had gone over to the other side, the territory would have covered 1,700 square kilometres. The management and supervision of the territory would then have become practically impossible in the context of current operations as well as for the other activities going on all over the place.

Mr. Jacques Saada: My second question is very hypothetical for the time being, but it could very well arise later on.

I presume that recreational boating will continue to be allowed in the park, as it is now, except if it causes problems. If fees were to be levied on pleasure craft, would there be convergence, competition or duplication with the present bill or would some things be treated differently?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: As for fees, of course the Saguenay is a passage. As we mentioned, there are industries upstream so you can't ask for a toll for people, for example, leaving the St. Lawrence and going up to Bagotville, Port-Alfred or Chicoutimi. The fee would be based on use. There are docks and there are marinas as well as a certain number of activities that will be going on. The fee will be based on docking rather than on something like a toll road. That's definitely out.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Two questions. The first concerns zoning. I've looked at the map. There are these four degrees of intensity from zone 1, which is the most preserved and really is very small, actually, in the scheme of things.

I'm also aware that what makes this different from regular parks is that it's not two-dimensional but three-dimensional. There's the water column. I see the zoning in two dimensions on the map, but is there also in effect zoning in three dimensions—that is to say, in the water column—and I'll make one up—where a diver can go down so far before interfering with something, but if he or she goes down further they're into something else? Is it three- or two-dimensional zoning?

[Translation]

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: Yes, there are in actual fact three dimensions.

[English]

It's three-dimensional.

Mr. John Godfrey: How would that actually work out in these four different zones? Is that spelled out in some fashion? Is it to be spelled out in the regulations or in the annex? How does three-dimensional zoning actually work?

[Translation]

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: It will be set out in the regulations. For example, there will be provision for a beluga birthing zone and herring spawning grounds. There will also be time-dependent zoning, as you've already seen. Other dimensions will be based on migration periods for birds as well as an activity concerning the kind of resources that are available and which, in some cases, are mobile and must move around.

Of course, in the case of intense-use activities, we also provide zoning for harvesting different species. That harvesting must be taken into account.

Mr. John Godfrey: So we have four dimensions, not three.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: That's right.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: Okay.

The second question is for my Nova Scotian friends over there. It links up to Mr. O'Brien's comment on the Torngat situation.

When you're looking at the Scotian Shelf, would your first thought, though not necessarily your last, be to locate the centre of your zone around an existing federal park, like the Kejimkujik adjunct park, which is on the south shore? Would that be the first thought, or are there other possibilities?

• 1010

Mr. Tom Lee: Let's put it this way: we wouldn't be driven by that type of locational concern. We are looking for the best, but wherever that could occur adjacent to a national park, we would do that. A good example is one we're currently studying, Bonavista marine conservation area. That is adjacent to Terra Nova, and that works well. It just happens that they both come together at the right place. But we wouldn't be driven by that as a primary locational fact. That is not the first criterion.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Looking at the zoning map, I also saw that integral protection was minimal next to the Îles aux Lièvres. There are two kinds of activities there. On the one hand, there's the scuba diving training school in the park zone and, on the other, the Université du Québec Oceanography Department and the Institut national de recherche scientifique that do a lot of research in that area. Will those two activities remain totally accessible, including in that zone reserved strictly for research?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: Of course, we'll be granting permits for research as such. That's also done in the other national parks, but not with a view to use.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Agreed.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: Research allows us to monitor the state and evolution of the resource.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: That's fine. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

Pollution originates not necessarily from the area where the park is located. What processes are in place to consult with other jurisdictions that would have an impact on, let's say, pollution coming from upstream or downstream?

[Translation]

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: The creation of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park, for the businesses upstream of the park, is something that encourages them to be far more vigilant in the way they manage their activities. You have certainly noted that the make-up of the coordination committee includes the representatives from four MRCs, which means 26 municipalities, environmental groups and the scientific community.

We also established agreements on research. We're talking here about the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne and Institut national de recherche scientifique who are currently pursuing studies on the beluga whale, the shrimp at the bottom of the park as well as different other species.

To give you some idea, during the last few years, we noted a distinctive improvement in the state of shrimp at the bottom of the Saguenay which already indicates that at this present time some steps have been taken. The monitoring will provide us with rather constant indicators and will also allow the 26 municipalities at the table to intervene as need be to preserve this marine park which will represent another major element for the region's tourist industry and allow us to prevent too much contamination or too much pollution from endangering, in a material way, the present resources which make the park such an interesting attraction.

Everyone is conscious of this. In my opinion, the different levels of government have taken steps to ensure follow-up and signal business interests in a timely fashion if ever there were problems.

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee: I would just add what I consider an important element, because clearly, while the park cannot in any way directly result in an intervention to prohibit people in Ontario from putting sewage in whatever—and I'm not isolating people in Ontario—it does one other very important thing that is part of the bigger picture.

By establishing this place—and I will refer specifically to the belugas—we have stated that this is a special place, and the belugas are a very important part of that. As I understand it, this is not a free-roaming group of beluga whales that come in and out from the Arctic or something. This group of beluga whales was isolated, probably during the last period of glaciation, and is a family that has existed in that isolated pocket, that little bit of their environment, since that time.

• 1015

The challenge it puts to the people who manage the park and to the people all the way upstream is “Help us to protect this very special animal in this very special circumstance”. So there's a terrific emotive element behind this that is useful for us all.

The Chairman: If I may interject, I thought I should mention that the whole idea of that park, when it started way back, was to tie it into the St. Lawrence project between the federal government and the Quebec government. It was a massive St. Lawrence program that was started in 1988, and it goes from five years to five years. It was renewed in 1993, and now it's called Vision 2000.

The whole idea is to try to de-pollute the St. Lawrence through actions from one end of the river through to Montreal and in fact right through to the Great Lakes. So the two are interconnected, obviously, because, I agree with you, you can't do one without the other. If you let pollution carry on, then of course the park will always be polluted.

You have another question, Mr. Muise?

Mr. Mark Muise: If I may.

The Chairman: Yes, sure.

Mr. Mark Muise: Since we have you people here, I was just wondering if you could give us some update as to any plans you have for marine parks on the Scotian Shelf or in the Bay of Fundy area, because I know there was some discussion of that. My colleague from Charlotte in New Brunswick said that back in the 1980s there were discussions on that, and I'd just like you to give me an update, if you could.

Mr. Tom Lee: I was just checking to make sure I'm up to date on this, Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Certainly.

Mr. Tom Lee: We had conducted studies, as you may recall, on an area on the Bay of Fundy called West Isles. The Province of New Brunswick concluded about two years ago that it might not be the best location. They have recently indicated that notwithstanding that, they would like to do some additional work with us and see if something might be available.

We also have two areas that are of interest and that under proper circumstances could be advanced. We're just doing some research on the Scotia Shelf. Perhaps we could undertake to get you some information on the status of those.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thanks.

On that, I was just thinking about the whole whale-watching industry that seems to have developed along the Digby Neck area and how researchers are coming in. I don't know if that's an area that could be, but I'm just thinking it potentially could.

Mr. Tom Lee: We would very much like to hear from you if you have some ideas on things we might want to look at. We'd be very pleased to receive those.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm just trying to get in my mind very clearly how Bill C-7 either conforms with existing comparable legislation or is different. In clause 19, the clause on search and seizure and authority to issue a warrant, can you tell us what differences there are that we should be aware of in any of the subclauses, differences from anything in comparable legislation? In other words, is Bill C-7 pushing the envelope at all?

• 1020

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: It is not pushing the envelope at all. I can give you at least four or five similar provisions in different acts, if you want. The National Parks Act, section 8, compares to clause 19 of this bill. You also have the Fisheries Act, subsection 49.(1), the Canada Wildlife Act, section 11.1, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, section 7, WAPPRIITA, which is the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, section 14, and the Oceans Act, section 39.2. Everything is common provisions.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Is that also true of clause 14, on entry?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: You can find an example of clause 14 in the Fisheries Act, section 52. Basically, when I was asked to prepare this act I looked at the current federal legislation provisions dealing with water, special endangered species, navigation and transport to find examples of powers to protect the environment in this context using those provisions. There is always a background for those provisions.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay. Then in a more general sense, on the slide about the purpose of the legislation I read: “To provide a legislative base for the administration of the park including regulation-making authority for areas not covered by other federal statutes.” Like what?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: For example, right now I'm not sure sea-doos are covered.

This summer in Quebec there was a sea-doo accident and people pushed to have a regulation about them. Is there any regulation right now on sea-doos? I don't think so. And the thing is that with sea-doos people can get very close to belugas, and for a beluga I guess it's kind of bothersome to see this thing coming up.

If you want to control that you can have a regulation under this act, even though there would be nothing under the Fisheries Act, the Marine Mammals Protection Act, the Transportation Act, and so on. You could use this act to have a regulation on sea-doos within the park—

Mr. Jim Abbott: This raises an interesting point. For sake of the brand name, I would prefer to call it personal watercraft. And I'm being serious, because there are many responsible people who use personal watercraft and there are also some abject idiots. It's the idiots we're after.

For example, we have a problem in a 100-mile stretch of the Columbia River, which is in the main flyway of waterfowl in North America and is a major nesting area. We have some abject idiots who use personal watercraft at very inappropriate times and in very inappropriate places.

From your example, it strikes me that we should be federally enacting legislation on personal watercraft as opposed to trying to put a personal watercraft section under Parks Canada. Is it not just a band-aid to be thinking of putting that in? Would PWCs, the way you're describing it, be covered by regulation or by law? Would they be covered by regulation under Parks Canada?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: If they are within the park, yes, by regulation.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm in favour of what you're talking about, but I'm not sure that we're going after it the right way.

I wonder if Mr. Lee could give us more of an idea of what other areas are not covered by federal statutes that this act is proposed to cover relative to this geographic area we're talking about.

Mr. Tom Lee: I don't know whether I could expand very much on it, Mr. Abbott. But basically to tell you where we're going, what is missing at this point in time in our authority—and I guess, perhaps as Mr. Rhéaume has indicated, in federal authority—is the ability to manage recreational or related activities on water, either on the surface or under the surface. That's the legislative piece that is missing. For these areas we obviously need that. That is what this is about, and if we can't do that we're not going to be able to protect the beluga whale.

• 1025

I appreciate the question you're raising, which is much bigger than me, and the question of whether or not on a broader scale, the four waters, there is the need to have some type of federal legislation. Mr. Abbott, I'm sorry, I haven't looked at that and I can't give you a very good response.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Abbott mentioned PWCs, I was given to thinking of a new pollution term that maybe he had come up with; then, again, maybe it is. Maybe we ought to just ban the damn things out of the park altogether.

My question may be obvious, but I'd like to have it for the record. We all applaud the cooperation between the government of the province of Quebec and Canada on this tremendous park. To what extent is this a precedent-setting agreement? Can you summarize that for me?

Mr. Tom Lee: In response to Mr. Abbott's question, I've given you kind of the core element. We're all together on those things, and there is no precedent being set.

As I indicated, in terms of where we would expect to go across Canada as we bring this all together, it is our preference that the beds of water be in federal ownership. In most cases that would be the case, because in most of these cases the marine area will be located in areas where the federal government owns the sea. There is a distinction here, if you like, that might not occur as you apply across Canada.

I did talk about the uplands. As a result of joint activity and complementary activity, the province has chosen to establish, associated with this, an upland section. That will not be a precedent, but it is a nice thing to have happen. That is not a requirement, and it wouldn't be a requirement as we move across other parts of Canada. So I don't regard that as a precedent but a nice thing to have happened.

The one thing that is a little bit new for us here but not for the federal government is the ability to delegate some of the law enforcement activity to a provincial party. As I say, that's new for us, but it's not precedent-setting in terms of the federal government. This is simply in the interest of efficiency.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: If I might interject there, Mr. Chairman, is it new in terms of Parks Canada, though?

Mr. Tom Lee: It is—

Mr. Pat. O'Brien: It's a first-time agreement in the enforcement of law in parks in Canada. Is that correct?

Mr. Tom Lee: That's correct.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay. I want to see what we're doing for the first time in this agreement and to what extent this agreement is similar to any other agreements we have with other provinces. I think it's a wonderful venture. I just want to understand what new ground is being broken here, that's all.

Mr. Tom Lee: As I say, I think we want to be clear that while it's new for us, it isn't new for the federal government.

For example, the Fisheries Act and the joint regulation of the winter fishery on the Saguenay fjord has been carried out jointly, federally and provincially, for some period of time. We're simply reflecting what exists in that sense.

The Chairman: As a precision, Mr. Lee, I take it that if you were going to create a marine park on the Fraser River, for instance, it would be the same model, where the province would own the bed and the federal government would have the jurisdiction on the water.

Mr. Tom Lee: I think we would prefer that the federal government owned the bed. So that's our policy; that's where we stand.

The Chairman: Yes, okay, I understand.

Mr. Tom Lee: In the case of the one we have before us, what we have with the joint agreement of both parties is that while the federal government does not own the bed, it is in fact managed in the same manner.

• 1030

The Chairman: I understand.

Mr. Muise and then Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Mark Muise: I have to agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Abbott that the personal watercraft issue is becoming a very contentious and dangerous one, both to public safety and somewhat to the marine environment. Since there is no law managing that right now, we need to have some protection or give the department some latitude to make that happen. I don't think we could deal with all aspects federally on issues that come into play here, so those issues have to be there in order to make the act go through, Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I wonder if there's something for us to learn about how the joint enforcement will work in this instance from the model at Gros Morne, where the town sites themselves are not park property, and yet obviously the services to them—any of the solid or liquid waste, etc.... I wonder if we could use the Gros Morne experience to take a look at the application of joint tenancy, joint control, or joint enforcement.

Mr. Tom Lee: Are you referring to other national parks or to this bill?

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm just saying I think Mr. O'Brien and a lot of us are on the same wavelength and asking what we are establishing here, what is new and what we can learn. If this committee were to become aware of the successes and some of the things that need improvement in Gros Morne, we would have a better understanding of how Bill C-7 would apply to this area.

Mr. Tom Lee: The issue is bigger than town sites. Whether or not, as in Gros Morne, private landowners and adjacent landowners are inside the park or adjacent to the park, it doesn't make any difference. The issue, generally, across the national park system is how can we, since those areas are not in federal jurisdiction, best arrange to collectively manage our resources in a harmonious fashion? That to me is the question.

We can learn something from Gros Morne, and it has its own peculiarities. I could say fairly it's an example we have never seen before, of a group of people—federal government, provincial government, communities, tourist associations—coming together in a dedicated and focused way with the same purposes. There is something unique happening here.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any more questions?

I would like to thank you very much.

Just before we close, I would like ask one question to Mr. Lee or Mr. Tremblay.

When we provided for the co-ordinating committee in clause 16, was there a particular reason why we left it loose and didn't provide for the types of representatives we would want in there? I know we have representatives of the municipalities, the scientific community and the environmental community. What would happen in time if a minister felt very differently and preferred not to have scientists, for example? Should we have at least indicated the types of people we want? Did you leave it loose so you could just regulate the number of people? Are we giving too much discretion in regard to future committees? That's what I'm asking.

• 1035

[Translation]

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: As you know, it's an enormous territory. We went for the administrative units that would be the most representative. We had reservations about gathering 26 mayors or 26 municipal representatives around the table. So we had to find a formula that would allow for representation of the municipal level which could then go back to that level and manage some of the matters raised.

Just take the matter of docks, as an example. At the present time, the Departments of Transport and Fisheries and Oceans are getting ready to hand over the docks to the municipalities. The fact that this work is being done at this time with the prefects of the MRCs in each of the county regional municipalities allows for a solution to be found for all of the docks and to the identification, with the stakeholders concerned of the ones that should be kept based on the management plan. The objective of the coordinating committee is still to manage the development of the park based on its management plan.

The Chairman: I totally agree, Mr. Tremblay. I understand that very well. All I wanted to ask was if there was any reason why the kind of representation needed on that committee was not detailed, the only thing being said in the clause of the act being that there would be a committee. Neither number nor representativity are mentioned. I was asking that because if it's not written into the Act itself, will it be a totally discretionary thing and will ministers one day be able to say that the municipal stakeholders are bugging them and that they don't need them, nor environmentalists, nor scientists? I simply wanted to know why nothing is said about representativity or numbers.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: We answered the requests expressed during public consultations concerning the designation of the members. Of course, it would always be possible, through recommendations from the coordinating committee, to make a recommendation to the minister. But I don't know what the legislative impact might be.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's an interesting question. Why did you not specify in the Act that it was MRC representatives, in each one of the MRCs? Why didn't you put into the bill what is spelled out in the management plan?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: If the wording of the legislation is too specific, there is a risk that after two or three years you might find you don't need an advisor in such or such an area and then you'd have to amend the federal legislation to ensure that the committee wouldn't have an advisor in that area. To avoid having to amend the list of committee members any time there's a change, we thought it would be preferable to have paragraph 16(2) saying that as long as Quebec is in agreement with us on what the membership of the committee should be, people should understand that the number of people is sufficient.

It shouldn't be forgotten that if, for example, it was decided that the federal government must appoint at least 12 individuals, you would also have to think about paying them to attend meetings, etc. If you are too specific about experts, for example if you wanted to call in an expert on marine mammals, you might have to get him from some location or another. We didn't want to be as specific as that, preferring to allow the Quebec and federal governments to decide on the make-up of the committee, obviously in consultation with the appropriate people. But we didn't want to be too specific.

The Chairman: I agree with you completely, although when we go into clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, we might determine whether we should specify a minimum of 30 people representing key sectors in this particular area, or something along those lines. We must ensure that in the future key sectors will always be represented.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: We looked at that, but decided that it would be too dangerous. Take, for example, the names of county regional municipalities. These could change overnight. That does not depend on us, but on the Quebec government. If it were to change its legislation, we would automatically have to change ours.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I think you are raising a very important point, not just in terms of substance because, as we appreciate the mechanisms are in place, but also on the symbolic level.

• 1040

The MRC, or county regional municipality, is an administrative regional entity developed in Quebec at the time in a very creative and forward-looking spirit. I think that the decision to designate it as one of the mandatory partners of this committee and the fact that we in the federal government recognize the role it plays, may be very valuable. I don't know if you understand my point. It seems to me important to specify the role of the regional entity as part of this process.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: However, as Mr. Rhéaume pointed out, the government may decide tomorrow morning that such entities no longer exist.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: To explain the situation more clearly, at the present time there are four MRCs. But in terms of the number of members you want on the committee, does this mean four representatives or one representative for the four MRCs? That is the question here.

The Chairman: Look, I didn't want to open a Pandora's box. I suggest we discuss this when we examine the...

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I would just like to point out that there is a danger if we become too specific while the provincial government is less so, that any parallel approach may be destroyed.

The Chairman: Yes, that's very true. There is already provincial legislation.

In any event, I would like to thank you very much, Mr. Lee, Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Rhéaume.

[English]

Thank you very much for coming.

Now, if you'll give us five minutes to discuss the agenda, that's all it will take.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment on the agenda.

The Chairman: Sure. Just wait for Madam Tremblay.

If we could look at the agenda, then,

[Translation]

I would like some confirmation about the few points I submitted to you yesterday. I remember that Ms. Tremblay suggested we talk about the status of women.

[English]

Ms. Fry has accepted to be there on the 17th, and so has Mr. Mitchell. In between we could look at—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is that the 17th or 18th?

[Translation]

The Chairman: The 18th and 20th. And the 19th.

[English]

we could do Bill C-7. There are no government amendments, so we could start Bill C-7. If we don't finish it during the two hours, maybe the members could stay a bit longer to finish it off, or.... Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: With respect to Bill C-7, Mr. Chairman, I wish to clearly state again that both I and my party are absolutely in favour of the establishment of this park in principle. I want to see it happen. However, I think there is a responsibility of this committee toward the concept of due diligence.

Before we do clause-by-clause we should hear from groups affected in the area. That's number one. Two, we should also hear from people who are concerned about the principle of expanding the concept of a marine park establishment.

While it is true—and Madam Tremblay just informed me that she'd been so advised by one of the parks people—that indeed each park is a template of its own, nonetheless I am aware there are people who are concerned about this and I think we should hear from them.

• 1045

Thirdly, while I respect the expertise of Mr. Rhéaume—he is, after all, the legal author of this bill, as I understand it—I'm particularly concerned, and I want to say this in a completely flat way, not to create any conflict, just because of the position of the existing Quebec government. I would want to hear from a respected independent constitutional lawyer, just to establish clearly that in the establishment of this agreement no strings are attached to it. I'm not naming anyone, because I don't have anyone in mind,

If we did those three things, I would suggest that the committee would have done due diligence and we could then proceed with clause-by-clause. Without doing those three things I think the committee would be acting as a rubber stamp, and I don't think that's healthy.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I'm a little surprised that the first thing being demanded is hearings with the people concerned by the bill. It seems to me that we have held all possible hearings and consultations with the people concerned. We have reports; reports do exist. Reports of findings have been drawn up, one of which was dated December 9 1993. That was the result of the second consultation. There had been one before.

I'm therefore very surprised that the Reform Party, which is always so careful about spending money, should propose that hearings be held with the people concerned. People have already been widely consulted.

Now for your second point. In my opinion, since there is a policy decision that each park must be unique, there could never be another bill like this one, like Bill C-7. There could not be a second park in Canada identical to this park; this is part and parcel of the parks policy. So I don't see how that could be considered dangerous.

Now if we have to see a constitutional expert before going any further, in order to satisfy the Reform Party, we can always ask to have an opinion sent in. But I don't see how that could...

I believe that, if there is one thing the federal government should be careful of, it is to protect its sovereignty and make no concessions to Quebec. I believe we have to assume the two parties are acting with a minimum of good faith, therefore I find these statements somewhat disturbing.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: My comments are basically the same as what Madam Tremblay has said, with a slight variation. This thing has been going on for many, many year. There has been consultation at every level. Many groups who are impacted by this have been consulted. That's the first point. I see no further benefit in doing this.

Secondly, if we're going to start to analyse every decision this government or this committee takes with an impact on the future of what Quebec or other parts of this country do.... You know, in 1999 there might be some strange ruling that something strange could happen which could impact on what we do today. We shouldn't let that stop us.

When you do tax planning you make tax decisions based on today's tax rules, not on tax rules that will come in the future. I suggest we should approach this in the same way. We have a country. There is no desire, at least in my mind, that the country break up, and I would work to that end forever.

Therefore I suggest that is not an issue we should embark on. I suggest we continue with the process quickly.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Saada, do you have anything to add?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I think these are very important arguments. Forgive me, but with all due respect for my Reform Party colleague, I have difficulty understanding his procedure. With respect to hearings, a glance at the summary will show that a great many briefs have been received and that consultations have been going on for some years.

A few moments ago, we said that this bill would be applied through the county regional municipalities, which are closest to the local communities, and the governments of Quebec and Canada.

• 1050

So that aspect could be superfluous.

My second point is that I am beginning to have some substantive reservations from a constitutional standpoint. If we are going to fall into a separatist dialectic every time we look at a bill—and I say this with all due respect to those who hold the opposite view—and get paranoid all the time, I have a problem. I have a real problem with that.

We are in Canada. Not so long ago, Quebec voted to remain in Canada. We have to stop thinking that in fact it did not. [English]

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, if there are no further interventions, I want to bring something up that might sort of put another light on this thing.

I was Minister of the Environment of Quebec under a Liberal government. You're talking about the government of today in Quebec. The government of today in Quebec was legitimately voted in by the people according to their wishes, but I was in a different government that had a different option. I started with this thing with the Conservatives way back. It is an idea that's been there for a long, long time. This was in 1985.

We signed an agreement in 1988 for the first St. Lawrence project, which included this park. At the time the constitutional position couldn't be clearer: every province in Canada owns the beds of rivers, and the federal government owns the navigable waters and the waters. That's been tested in the courts. It was tested actually in a famous case in British Columbia. So the constitutionality and the legalities are clearly known.

So what we're doing now.... I can tell you, it's the result of tremendous negotiations. In the government I was in, Mr. Bourassa's government, we negotiated for three or four years on how to put these things together. How do you make a park out of something where one party owns a part of it and another party owns another part of it? Nothing has been more negotiated than this, that I remember.

The amazing part is that it went far beyond party allegiance. It was started by.... When I was there, it was Liberals in Quebec and the Conservatives in Ottawa. Now it's the Liberals in Ottawa and the Parti Québécois government in Quebec. So it went far beyond parties.

I think Madame Tremblay is right on. Nothing I know has been more extensively consulted on than this. There was a first set of consultations that went from the time the project started. The federal government had put $10 million in the St. Lawrence project, earmarked for the park. There were all these starting discussions, and committees were formed. There was a tremendous input from the people of the Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean region, the St. Lawrence region and that whole area.

Eventually, after the first set of consultations, which were extensive, there was a framework put together by the federal and Quebec governments, and that put back into the hopper again for further consultations, which lasted, Madame Tremblay will tell us, for months in 1993. It was a consultation involving environmental groups, scientists, university people, the public at large, all the municipalities, the Quebec government, and the federal government. It was I think the most extensive consultation, and I think this is why this is here. If it hadn't been for that extensive consultation and the fact that both governments were clear that “Okay, I have my jurisdiction; you have yours, and it will be preserved, but we'll put it together in similar laws”, I don't think it would have happened.

We can bring a constitutional expert here. He will say exactly what we know. We can bring all these people who will repeat what they want. I really feel genuinely that there's been so much done. You can look at all the reports. The 1993 consultation report is there, as are all the briefs.

• 1055

So I really think we would just be spinning wheels on something that is already done. I am not trying to stop the process of democracy or consultation—far from it, I hope you have my assurance. You can speak to the Conservative Party, to Mr. Harvey, who was very involved with it, to McMillan, who was the minister then, or talk to the present ministers in Quebec, in Ottawa, or all the other people who were involved, and they will tell you exactly the same thing.

So I don't think that is a problem at all. And especially I agree with my colleague, Mr. Saada, that we cannot stop the wheel turning because we say we have a government in Quebec that does not fit in with the way we see things. It is a legitimate government. It is elected to make decisions. In this particular case, on the very contrary, it is making the decision that it wants to work with the federal government to arrive at a conclusion. I think we should welcome that.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Just as a point of clarification, I know that you were not inferring that I didn't think the PQ was a legitimately elected government.

The Chairman: No. I understand that.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

The Chairman: No. I am just saying we have to take these things in good faith and I hope that on the basis of this you will reconsider. Otherwise, it will be the wish of the members, and I think the wish is that we just carry on.

I would like to put on record that I think we have done a huge amount of work on this, which is all available. It is all available for full consultation. If you go to your researchers, I am sure the researchers of the committee here will reproduce all of the stuff for you, which I think will allay your fears.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I wonder, just for the record, if you would mind if I asked for a recorded vote that the will of the members of the committee is to proceed to clause-by-clause and have a recorded vote.

The Chairman: By all means. Sure. Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I want to note that I assumed something this big would have to have already gone through the extensive process of public hearings, which you have explained. But I'm glad you explained it, and in my question on precedent-setting earlier, this is what I was trying to find out. It seemed to me this was an exciting project, that there wasn't any touchy legal precedent being set here or anything—we've heard that is the case from our witnesses and also from the chair.

So it seems to me this has been an exciting project, a long time in the making, and we're just being asked to assist with the delivery. I think we should get on with it too.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I find it facile for the official opposition representative here to ask for a recorded vote to proceed to clause-by-clause. If he has any witnesses, let him bring them forward, let him make the suggestions. No one has stopped him from making suggestions of particular witnesses.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I have made the motion. I would be happy to have a vote.

The Chairman: I think we could proceed to a vote on whether we should go to clause-by-clause.

Mr. John Godfrey: What is the motion on the floor?

The Chairman: The motion on the floor is whether we should proceed clause by clause or otherwise. If we vote to proceed, it is yes. If we vote against it, we do not proceed clause by clause and then we look at it again.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Point of order, please.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Is this regular committee procedure? When someone moves a motion, must there be a seconder?

The Chairman: No, we don't need a seconder.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you.

• 1100

[English]

The Chairman: Just before we leave, on November 24, 1997, we are going to have these two suggested departments at 11 a.m. I would propose to you that on December 2, 1997, we have three speakers to talk to us about the impact of trade on broadcasting. It's just a suggestion. We thought we could have Mr. Bernard Ostry, who has made a complete study of it. He's going to address the APEC meeting on this very subject. We would also have Madam Pennefather and Mr. Florian Sauvageau. We had already suggested these people. I asked for suggestions from the members, and I didn't receive any. If it's okay with you, we would invite them on December 2, 1997.

All right, merci.

The meeting is adjourned.