CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 9, 1999

• 1107

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to order. On our agenda, pursuant to our order of reference from the House dated Tuesday December 1, 1998 is

[English]

a study of Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas.

The witnesses before us are Mr. Tom Lee, the Chief Executive Officer of Parks Canada Agency—congratulations, Mr. Lee, on your nomination—Mr. Bruce Amos, Director General of National Parks;

[Translation]

From the Department of Canadian Heritage, Mr. Laurent Tremblay, Executive Director, Quebec Region, and Mr. Alain Roy, Legal Counsel.

[English]

Mr. Lee, maybe you could speak to us about C-48 and give us the perspective of the officials, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Tom Lee (Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning everyone.

I'd like to begin by briefly putting this initiative into context. I will leave you copies of my statement, which will provide you with additional details, in both official languages. We will also leave you with several other documents, such as

[English]

the map of the marine conservation areas, the documents on working together, the policies, and the guiding principles. I hope that if the committee members find these useful, they will avail themselves of the opportunity to take on these documents.

I will try to keep my remarks brief, as I usually have done before the committee, and just walk you through an outline I've left with you.

First, just to present the context, the marine conservation areas are part of a family of protected heritage areas that have been developed in Canada over the course of many years. The marine conservation areas are a particular element of five categories of conservation that the Government of Canada is involved in at the national level.

• 1110

The marine conservation areas fall under a partnership with other federal departments, basically, under the general direction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Under the Oceans Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans takes leadership in putting in place the protective and management measures for Canada's oceans. That involves a number of federal departments, and the two other major ones are noted here, Environment and Canadian Heritage.

I would like to comment a little on that, Mr. Chairman, if I may, because during the consultations and as we watched this evolve, we noted that there are concerns about overlap and duplication, who is doing what, and so on. I would like to say that from the work we've done, our view is that what is happening here is not duplication, enlargement, or duplicity. It is in fact a convergence. Under this legislation the various departments of the federal government come together in these particular places. They continue to perform their own role, but they operate under an umbrella policy. So, basically, the opportunity is there to reduce conflict and duplication and to not have the Minister of Transport opening up transportation routes in these areas and somebody in wildlife saying, you're damaging our whales. The structure of this legislation is in fact forcing and encouraging cooperation in the management of these areas.

The history of Parks Canada with regard to marine policy developments, as outlined in the chart, is that the first policy work was released in 1986; comprehensive policy statements were released and tabled in Parliament in 1994; in 1995 the overall system plan was released; and, finally, there was the coming together in the form of this bill.

I would like to make one comment on the system plan, which sets out to protect some areas in all of Canada's major natural regions. The total number is outlined on the map. I would like to stress that this does not mean that each one of these natural regions is designated potentially as a marine conservation area, just some small element of them. When you look at the total impact over the long term of the creation of marine conservation areas, I would refer the committee to the context of national parks, with 39 regions to be represented and ultimately engaging, perhaps at the maximum, 3% of Canada's land areas. When you look at that with regard to the marine conservation areas, that helps you put it into context, that very likely less than 3% of Canada's oceans might ultimately be protected under these very special areas.

As we went about the consultation on these areas, there were a number of things that helped shape the policy and a number of things that now emerge in the legislation. The marine conservation areas are not national parks in the water. Compared to national parks, whose resources are fully protected and whose management is always directed toward trying to keep those parks in as natural a state as possible, marine conservation areas are managed for sustainable use, for resource use. They include protected areas and operate under a principle of sustainable development and management. So we balance protection and use.

Marine conservation areas require partnerships with people, communities, and provinces in a manner that is not required under the National Parks Act, where the purposes are narrow, defined, and very clearly within a particular agency and focus. We require a different type of method for managing in cooperation with other jurisdictions.

The involvement of local people and support is essential in national parks, but it is even more essential in these places, because you're working directly inside communities with community people, with protective and environmental groups, and with commercial and development interests.

• 1115

Finally, a distinguishing element of marine conservation areas as compared to other types of conservation areas that might be established under the Oceans Act or the Canada Wildlife Act is the focus on recreation, tourism, and learning. Those, of course, are some of the paramount elements that come out of the national parks system and flow out into the protected areas or the marine conservation areas.

We have involved roughly 3,000 stakeholders in the process of consultation. I should say that was our stakeholder list. You get a variety of degrees of participation with regard to those. We have perhaps 10% of those very actively engaged and the others involved in more of an information exchange role. But as we've worked through this we have tried to achieve a good balance between the protection and use elements.

The marine conservation area proposal, the legislation before you, incorporates some distinguishing elements with regard to how these areas would be established. There will be, and is required, extensive public involvement during the feasibility study. This is perhaps not unusual. We usually do this with regard to any of the areas we're working with. We have found that we work better on this through regional committees that are established up front at the beginning, and we have a number of those operative at this stage.

A distinguishing element in terms of process is that prior to presenting a marine conservation area to Parliament for legislative action, there is a requirement in the legislation to table before Parliament what I would describe as a statement of purposes and nature of the areas proposed, because compared to national parks, there is extreme variability in what a marine conservation area would look like. One in the Saguenay might look completely different from one on Gwaii Haanas. We have to recognize those, and we will table in Parliament, pursuant to this legislation and prior to bringing forth a legislative proposal, an outline of the nature of the area that is being presented.

Finally—and this is totally distinguishing as well—under this legislation it is mandatory that advisory bodies be established at the local level to advise on the management of these areas. This is not a legislative requirement in the case of national parks, but it is a legislative requirement in the case of these areas. Again, it's a reflection of the unique nature of management and partnership that is required to bring these areas together.

We are making progress in the establishment of MCAs, and we have a number of initiatives premised on federal land ownership, which include Fathom Five and Georgian Bay, Gwaii Haanas, studies going on in Bonavista, Lake Superior, and the Strait of Georgia, and of course we have passed through this committee and through this Parliament the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park bill, which is a very specialized piece of legislation representing a marine conservation area initiative with some differences, some unique elements that form part of the discussions in establishing that area.

Basically, marine conservation areas are managed as multiple-use zones, which include commercial uses. There are protected zones. Certain commercial activities are appropriate within the overall management plan. Zoning is part of the tool that is used, and ecosystem management is the fundamental element that guides the nature of management.

In conclusion, I would remark to the committee that in my own personal view we have the opportunity through this legislation to embark on another very important period of Canadian leadership and responsibility with regard to our environment.

• 1120

In 1885 some people in Canada determined to create Banff National Park, and out of that grew a system of national parks that are not only sources of pride to all Canadians but are symbols throughout the world of the efforts that a nation can make in the interest of its environment. Those national parks dealt with are land-based.

This initiative, coming at the opening of, really, the next millennium, can signal not only to Canadians but to the world that Canada again is taking responsibility in an area of conservation and is prepared to put its efforts forth toward dedicating these very special places, which ultimately will provide a balance, a replication, if you like, to the great achievements we have made on the land conservation side.

Those are my opening remarks. Our legal counsel is prepared to take you quickly through the bill if you so wish.

The Chairman: At this stage, would the members like to question Mr. Lee? You all have a kit, including the legislation, and as questions go along, surely you could feel very free to ask any of the officials and the legal officials for precisions as you wish.

We'll start with Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to see you here today. Thank you for taking the time to come before us.

I'll go through a few questions I wrote down as we went through your preliminary remarks.

Regarding the consultation process in terms of developing this park, when did it start and what was the process?

Mr. Bruce Amos (Director General, National Parks, Department of Canadian Heritage): If I may go back a little bit in history, the basis for the legislation is in policies for marine conservation areas that Parks Canada began to investigate in 1986. There was a policy developed as a result of 17 workshops across the country in 1986 for “marine parks”, as they were then known.

In the early 1990s, when Parks Canada's policies were being reviewed and updated, that included a policy on marine conservation areas, which is part of the handout behind me. That policy was the result of over 70 meetings across the country, with considerable input from all sectors on the policy basis for a future system of conservation areas.

With respect to the legislation, more specifically, the government chose in this particular case to produce, prior to introducing the legislation, a public consultation document to outline some of the possible bases of the legislation and to seek public input prior to drafting. That was done, starting in 1997, if I'm not mistaken. The consultation document, called “Charting the Course”, was circulated, as Mr. Lee says, to some 3,000 organizations, covering the full range of interests, I believe, in the marine environment.

Based on that document, people indicated their interest in further meetings, and a range of meetings were held. Whenever people wanted to discuss the approach, meetings were held or briefs were submitted, or people made phone calls and asked for additional information via the web site and other means.

Mr. Inky Mark: Of the 3,000 stakeholders you contacted, who were these? Were these individuals, municipal groups, environment groups, provincial governments?

Mr. Bruce Amos: Yes, they were all of those, as well as tourism organizations, fishing organizations, organizations interested in oil and gas and resource development, academics, the science community, other federal departments, of course, and the provincial governments. We'd be pleased to provide the full list of the organizations to whom the information was sent.

Mr. Inky Mark: Also, could you provide me with the number of returns?

• 1125

In terms of this legislation, when I took on this post last summer, I tried to find out for myself who actually was consulted. I spoke to all the provinces, but most of them didn't know this legislation existed, which really surprised me. I asked who was consulted and what kind of input they had into it. Maybe they weren't interested. I don't know.

Mr. Bruce Amos: If I may, Mr. Chair, of course it's quite possible that certain individuals in the provincial governments might not have been aware.

Mr. Inky Mark: They weren't.

Mr. Bruce Amos: If you would like me to illustrate the kinds of steps that were specifically taken with provincial governments, presentations were made to provincial officials, our normal colleagues in the parks area, beginning as far back as 1996. Mr. Mitchell, the secretary of state, twice briefed provincial and territorial parks ministers specifically on this legislation at the annual meeting of parks ministers. He wrote to each of his provincial counterparts and attached a copy of the bill as soon as it was tabled. He also sent a follow-up newsletter containing a summary of the nature of the bill.

Mr. Inky Mark: I have one more question before I pass it on.

On the map at the back, you have all these little areas circled out. For the coastal regions of this whole country, you leave the impression you're going to conserve everything. That raises red flags for most people.

Mr. Bruce Amos: Just to clarify that, further to Mr. Lee's comments, I understand your point that it might leave the impression that the intention is to apply this act to all of the areas shown. That's not the intention. The intention is to establish a representative system of marine conservation areas.

The purpose of delineating Canada's coast and the Great Lakes into marine regions is to identify those distinct major ecosystems or marine regions. The purpose within each of those would be to identify to Parliament, after local consultations, a small area that is a good representation of that region for recommendation as a marine conservation area.

This is a framework. It's shown as a scientific framework within which representative areas would be selected. The ultimate goal would be that Canadians would have a system of marine conservation areas that is a good representation of each of the marine regions, but those would be small areas within each of those regions.

Mr. Inky Mark: The problem is that there is no guarantee that it will happen. The legislation says that by order in council you can amend the act to add names to the reserves. Really, given the way the legislation is written, there's no guarantee that it will be reviewed, discussed, and debated in the House.

Mr. Bruce Amos: The section of the act that deals with the establishment of new marine conservation areas requires that an order in council to establish the area be tabled in the House and stand referred to the committee. That process—and you may want to get into it in more detail, Mr. Chairman—is intended to ensure that there will be parliamentary scrutiny before any area becomes a marine conservation area and is subject to the act.

The Chairman: If I may, I would ask you to let us know if it's the same process that took place in the creation of the new park in the Arctic recently, Tuktut Nogait Park. Is it the same process?

Mr. Bruce Amos: It is a somewhat different process than the current process for the establishment of a national park, which essentially requires an amendment to the National Parks Act. As you say, that would come through the committee as an amendment to the act. By way of background on the process that's underway here, before an area came to the point at which the government would be recommending its establishment, there would be extensive consultations, a feasibility study, a federal-provincial agreement in place, and arrangements worked out with other key departments, particularly the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. All of that background work would have to be done. And as Mr. Lee states, there is a requirement in the bill for a report outlining the purpose and management proposed at the time the area is being recommended.

• 1130

The process recommended here is somewhat different from that for national parks. It's based on the fact that there are extensive consultations and formal agreements in place before the area is recommended to Parliament. There is a clear process to ensure parliamentary scrutiny, but it is short of a total amendment to this legislation each time the new area is established.

The Chairman: I realize that, yes. I appreciate that.

[Translation]

Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I want to focus for a moment on one of the questions raised by Mr. Mark, because I'm not at all satisfied with the responses given to date. We haven't, or at least the Quebec government hasn't, received the kind of confirmation that the department's representative seems to be giving.

In our opinion, the consultation process has been a farce. I don't think there has been any real consultations. From the very beginning, we have been asking for two things: the list of everyone who has been consulted and in particular, a real report on the consultation process. Mention was made of briefings to the ministers. These letters should be tabled to the committee.

From what we've seen thus far, this doesn't qualify as genuine consultation. Something isn't quite right here. The individuals concerned don't appear to be truly informed about this draft legislation and this could ultimately lead to some problems when the legislation comes in to force.

Given that an agreement was signed in 1998 with British Columbia and another in 1990 with the Quebec government calling for joint action on the establishment of marine conservation areas, why hasn't the government continued on the same course and why is it stirring up problems by bringing in this bill? Why has it opted for this course of action?

The Chairman: Mr. Tremblay.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay (Executive Director, Quebec Region, Department of Canadian Heritage): Regarding consultation, I won't repeat what Mr. Amos mentioned with regard to 1986 and 1996 and to the ministerial meetings. I'll only say that we asked the Quebec department of the environment and wildlife to identify those departments that would be interested in getting a copy of the bill. They supplied us with a list of 10 departments. Of the ten departments listed, four participated in the consultation process. I can name them for you: transport, culture and communications, agriculture, fisheries and food and environment and wildlife. The latter is also responsible for parks.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): You named several departments. Did the others not respond?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: I don't have the names of the other departments that did not respond, but I can get that information for you.

The Chairman: That information would be useful to have.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: When did all of this happen?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: In May of 1997.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: May of 1997?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: That's correct.

The Chairman: What did this consultation process involve?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: As Mr. Amos mentioned, they were supplied with all of the documentation available on the establishment of marine conservation areas as well as all documents produced subsequently.

The Chairman: Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Certainly this information would be very important, but do we know what position... were they informed, and then failed to respond, or did the Quebec government in fact formally respond?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: The departments that I named responded after they received the documentation.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: And what was their response?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: I don't think it will be a problem getting that for you, along with the list of the departments that did not respond.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Fine.

Now then, apparently 3,000 stakeholders were consulted. We now know that some departments were approached, but aside from them, who are we talking about? I don't want the names of each of these 3,000 individuals, but who exactly are we talking about? Were all associations concerned about ecological issues consulted, for example? Were fishers consulted? Who are we talking about here?

• 1135

Mr. Bruce Amos: We can supply you with the list of every organization and person consulted.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Excellent. Thank you very much.

Now for the critical question. Why did you decide not to pursue the same course of action as you did with British Columbia and Quebec when you formalized agreements establishing two parks? Why are you looking for problems by trying to go it alone when normally, such ventures should be joint initiatives?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Amos, you don't seem to be—

[Translation]

Mr. Bruce Amos: Yes. As far as British Columbia is concerned, we are proceeding in accordance with the agreement that we signed with the province.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: As I understand it, this agreement covers very specific types of parks. One has already been officially opened in Quebec. However, as far as establishing other parks in Quebec, why not use the Saguenay—Saint-Laurent marine park as a model? Why have you decided to adopt a different model or approach?

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee: Mr. Chairman, just to respond to that, the park in Quebec contained a number of unique elements. First, the bed of waters beneath the Saguenay Fjord is under the ownership of the province, so it's a provincial resource. The second point is that the Saguenay Marine Park contained an element that would not normally be—although I'm not saying it could never be—incorporated into or be a part of a marine conservation area per se. Side by side with the marine conservation area, with the federal portion, there is a provincial park that is to be managed in a cooperative manner under the agreement we have.

The third unique element in the Saguenay area was the number of municipal-government-level cooperative partnerships.

So there were three elements involved in the Saguenay that required special legislation, special arrangements, different arrangements than would normally occur. Normally, in the areas we're looking at in the future, we'll be looking at areas that are under federal jurisdiction in terms of ownership of the beds.

In the case of Ontario, with the Great Lakes, ownership of the beds of water is clear: they are in the province. On the other hand, the Province of Ontario, in its precedent-setting in Fathom Five, undertook to turn that jurisdiction over to the federal government. We have with Ontario a memorandum of understanding that would extend that model into both Lake Superior and Lake Ontario, and we're currently doing studies in Lake Superior now. So I would express that what is happening in Ontario is in fact a reflection of the basis of our relationship.

The same thing is occurring in British Columbia. In a particular case in the Gulf Islands, the ownership of the beds of water is with the province. On the other hand, the province is saying that should we proceed to establish a marine conservation area, B.C. would like to work to continue on the Gwaii Haanas area.

I would try to summarize this by saying that there are instances—I think the Saguenay is an example of one, I suppose one could say that Fathom Five is an example of another, and the work we're doing in the Gulf Islands is an example of a third—in which, before we could proceed to establish a marine conservation area, we would require an agreement with the province because there are provincial resources involved. We cannot do that arbitrarily by ourselves. On the other hand, throughout the balance of the marine conservation areas, the majority of cases and resources are under federal jurisdiction, so there is no land ownership question involved.

• 1140

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Looking at numbers 5, 6 and 7 and what is planned for the St. Lawrence Estuary, the Magdalen Shallows and the Laurentian Channel, it's clear that this is no different than in the case of the Saguenay fjord. Quebec owns the seabed and the coast.

How can the federal government proceed to establish a marine conservation area when all it owns is whatever floats on the surface of the water? Its own neither the land nor the seabed. Why is the federal government once again trampling on our jurisdiction? This answer doesn't justify this action. It is a theoretical response. I want a political answer.

The Chairman: Would anyone care to respond?

[English]

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes, there are some specific areas in Canada where there still remains a difference of views over who owns what and what the jurisdiction is. I think Madame Tremblay is referring, in this case, to areas where the federal view and the provincial view may be different. Obviously those types of issues would have to be worked through if we were to establish an area in there, but it is not within the ability of this legislation to resolve the different federal and provincial viewpoints on that particular issue.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I see. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our guests.

I come from a riding where a large percentage of the economy is based on fishing. I am asking my questions in that line, so I can understand the process, how the development of a specific area will take place. Could you, by giving me an example, work through a process. Let's say there is a certain zone that borders on various communities. How would that happen?

Mr. Bruce Amos: We could perhaps use, as a possible example, the work that's underway in Lake Superior now. The others would be similar.

The first step is looking at one of the natural regions. We would undertake a scientific study to identify where you could have a good representation of the natural region. So within the natural region, where do scientists say you have a small place that together is a good representation of the marine features of that region? There might be several of those possible. At that point, we would undertake discussions with our provincial colleagues and with others. There are a number of factors set out in the policy statement that give us some guidance on this, but we'd be looking at places that might be the most likely place to proceed.

Let's move on now to a case where, as in western Lake Superior, an area has been identified, in that case jointly with the provincial government, as an area that was deserving of some further study. We would move into a feasibility study stage if the province was supportive, and that would generally be based on a formal memorandum of understanding between Parks Canada and the provincial government setting out how a feasibility study would be undertaken.

We normally expect those studies to take a couple of years. The fundamental basis of those is public consultation. We would undertake a number of scientific studies to learn information about the area. In all the cases that are active now, we, with the support of the province, have appointed an advisory committee or a regional committee. That committee is formulated in different ways. The one in Lake Superior has a representative from each of the municipalities in the region. Those representatives were named by the municipal councils or local bodies as well as representatives from major interest sectors such as fishing, recreational boating, and others.

• 1145

So you have a regional committee that actually leads the feasibility study process, and with support from Parks Canada over a period of years and with public consultations that they essentially design, it studies the question, is it feasible to have an area here that could be a marine conservation area? It's always an open question. They will report back to the federal and provincial governments. They may report back after their consultation that it is not feasible. On the other hand, they may well report that something is feasible. But these are the kinds of things that need to be done to generate public support.

So the essential question is, is it feasible, and is there public support for this initiative? If they report to governments that there is support, and if the governments together want to proceed, they would typically negotiate a federal-provincial agreement, which would set out terms and conditions for establishment of the area. As part of that process the key questions about how would the area be zoned, what kinds of uses might be allowed or controlled—those should all be discussed through that feasibility process and form part of the recommendations to governments so that it's known before one gets into establishing an area what the potential impacts and benefits might well be.

Mr. Mark Muise: If by chance there are groups—one group, some groups, or a number of groups—that say there is a lack of interest, there's a strong desire that this MCA not be established, will that decision not to proceed come from the recommendation or...? I guess what I'm trying to determine is can the groups say yes, we've heard some opposition to this, but we feel strongly that yes, there should be an MCA?

Mr. Bruce Amos: The regional committee is free to make whatever recommendations it wishes. In the end, as I say, they may recommend against it or they may be for it with conditions. Our experience in national parks as well as in our preliminary work on marine conservation areas indicates that there's rarely unanimity. So a regional committee would have a judgment to make. After their report is made to the federal and provincial governments, they too would need to assess the report they get.

Our experience, if I may, in national parks is that without a strong measure, a strong indication, of public support, typically the federal government has been extremely reluctant to proceed with initiatives like this. Obviously Parliament, through the process I described briefly, would have an opportunity to review what has gone on when an area is recommended, to look at the consultations and the views, and make their own assessment as to whether the government's recommendation was supported.

Mr. Mark Muise: The zones that are identified as being representative of the ecosystems or the area that you would like to designate—who determines the zone that would come up for study?

Mr. Bruce Amos: The initial steps are led by Parks Canada, and it's done primarily through scientific work, either by consultants or in collaboration with university scientists. But the decision on which of those areas to move ahead on is done in collaboration with the provincial government, and often there are some soundings and local consultations to see if there's going to be fertile ground for further discussion.

Mr. Mark Muise: Right. Even before the feasibility or the memorandum of understanding is signed?

Mr. Bruce Amos: Yes. Our preliminary work in Lake Erie has led to exactly those kinds of considerations. There are some areas where people are supportive and they're indicating yes, please, let's study this here, and there are other areas where people have the opposite reaction; they're sending signals to the minister in the opposite direction.

The Chairman: Last question.

• 1150

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Coming from an area that is so dependent on the fishery, you can well understand my question, because you want to make sure that all the consultations will take place. If there are groups that feel this should not proceed, their concerns should be given equal weight when it comes to the decision-making process. I think that is something that is very key and critical to making this something that will be well taken by those communities.

Mr. Bruce Amos: We completely agree, and one example that may illustrate the point for members is the feasibility study that is underway off Newfoundland in relation to Bonavista-Notre Dame Bays. A regional committee has been established. The majority of members on that committee are from the fishing sector, and that's clearly in recognition of the fundamental importance of that marine region to the fishing community. There's no question that the importance of their views has been underscored by the composition of the committee, and that was the wish of local communities we consulted, all of whom are represented, but a majority are from the fishing sector.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I'm interested in this legislation because the thing you're dealing with is the typically late twentieth century problem; that is to say, as Madame Tremblay has pointed out, it has both provincial and federal dimensions, and scientific dimensions, and sometimes international dimensions when you look at your map. So it's a challenge both to two orders of government to come up with solutions, but it's also—and this is where I really want to focus—a challenge within the existing federal government to establish a kind of hierarchy of decision when the going gets tough.

Mr. Muise has raised the issue, for example, of the concern of the fisheries. I saw some people today on the issue of extending for George's Bank a moratorium against drilling beyond the year 2000. That area is part of your zone 9, the Scotian Shelf.

What I want to understand is...here we have a 19th century federal government, set up with departments that didn't understand anything very much about the environment or telecommunications or any of the complexities of late 20th century life. I can identify in the case of the drilling moratorium, for example, that the federal government is going to deal with that through the Department of Natural Resources. So sometimes on these issues there's a Natural Resources component, there's a Fisheries and Oceans component, there's a Department of the Environment component, and right now we're dealing with a Heritage-Parks Canada component. In other words, our governmental structures, both federal-provincial and within one level of government, don't deal very well with late 20th century problems.

So what I want to understand in this process, putting aside the issue of how we deal with provincial interests and provincial rights, is how within the federal government these issues are resolved. Who trumps whom here in terms of which interests will ultimately prevail if there's a competition between...?

I could also probably throw in tourism as representing Industry Canada. If I worked harder, I could probably also get in the Department of Foreign Affairs. If we worked at it pretty hard, we could bring in a number of other federal departments.

Does Heritage Canada have a priority in the process of establishing this? How do we sort it out internally in the determination of what interest will prevail in which area? Or do we do it very well?

Mr. Tom Lee: The leadership with regard to the oceans rests with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The context in which we work respects that leadership. An organization that has one component of it would not be expected to put forth independently, if you like, ideas that fall outside that framework and without consulting with the lead partner. That framework is there and, as far as I can determine, will work well.

• 1155

On the second part of your question, the part about who trumps whom, one would hope we never reach that point. I think it's part of the question raised by the previous questioner. As these things are brought forth, it is ultimately the responsibility of the ministers to make sure the right balance is reached. I suppose this is the difference between the 19th, 20th or 21st century, Mr. Godfrey, and some regime that might have existed in the 1400s, when this discipline and decision-making was much simpler because you had the power that went with it and weren't required to bring in the constituency.

I wouldn't omit the relationship with the provinces. You've asked how it works in Federal Court. I would just like to comment on how it might work in federal-provincial relations, because there's a good example on the west coast now.

The Province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada are interested in a comprehensive look at this. They don't want one organization, Parks Canada, coming at them today asking how the marine conservation area is there; fish and wildlife people coming at them tomorrow saying they have an idea over here; and Fisheries and Oceans coming at them the next day on something else. Under the joint leadership of federal Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in British Columbia, they're looking at the entire thing comprehensively. As Parks Canada, we are bringing forth our marine conservation areas within that overall framework.

This is the relationship that exists in this area. It's a single example of the large-scale, joint work that I could point out that we're doing at this time. I think it is an example of an approach that works at the governmental level, both federally and provincially.

Mr. John Godfrey: Let me just understand this, because I think it's important. Although you are doing the detail work, the ministry that puts in place the framework and has the ultimate convening ability to sort out all of the other federal departments that might have an interest—Industry, Natural Resources, or whatever else—is in fact Fisheries and Oceans, not Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Tom Lee: Are you taking it under the umbrella of care—I'll use that word—for Canada's oceans?

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes.

Mr. Tom Lee: It's Fisheries and Oceans. Within that, there's a player called Parks Canada that has a specific role to play.

I think the other important thing is related to the governance issue that you've raised, and it is also somewhat unique to this legislation. If you take a look at the variety of interests in the managing of fisheries in a marine conservation area, for example, clearly the management objectives of that fishery have to correspond to the management objectives for the marine conservation area. Under this legislation, the fisheries plan is developed as part of the management plan for the entire area, not separately; we won't have one agency doing it one way and another doing it another way. The management of the fisheries would be handled under the Fisheries Act by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but the regulations would be signed off jointly by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in this particular case. That's the way it is structured.

Mr. John Godfrey: A final question. The prime interlocutor, the lead minister, for each province or territory would vary based on the province or territory. Typically, in Nova Scotia, Quebec or British Columbia, who would those lead equivalents of Fisheries and Oceans be? Who plays the overarching role?

Mr. Tom Lee: It is extremely variable, Mr. Godfrey. In British Columbia, as I indicated, it is the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks that basically has that leadership role. Interestingly, though, they have a small “department of fisheries” in B.C. As I said, however, the lead there rests with Environment.

If you go over to the other end of the scale, into Newfoundland, our major partner is the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. We have worked more closely with that aspect. In addition to the fisheries element, they look at it as adding to an economic development component. The major benefit would come from the development of the tourism industry around it.

Mr. John Godfrey: And in Quebec and Nova Scotia, who would they be?

• 1200

Mr. Tom Lee: In Quebec, we particularly have dealt with the ministry of the environment. In Nova Scotia, I don't think we have a direct counterpart at this point in time. The point is that the determination is up to the province.

Mr. John Godfrey: It's just interesting to get a pattern.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: On a point of order, I'd like to clarify something regarding Quebec.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: When the latest cabinet was formed, responsibility for parks and wildlife was transferred from the department of the environment to Mr. Chevrette specifically.

Mr. John Godfrey: The same thing happened to Mr. Mitchell.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That's right.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: First of all, I'd like to congratulate Mr. Lee on his new title of Chief Executive Officer of the Parks Canada Agency. I believe the title appears on the witness list. Congratulations, Mr. Lee. I'm very pleased to see that your management style is not rooted in the 14th century, as you mentioned earlier.

Secondly, I'm a little disappointed to see that our colleague, the official opposition critic, has left the room momentarily. I would have liked him to hear this, but I will nevertheless read this letter into the record. It is dated March 26, 1997 and it is signed by the deputy minister. Since the letter is in English, I will read it in English.

[English]

It is addressed to Mr. Tom Lee, Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada, from David Tomasson, Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, Manitoba, and it says:

Dear Mr. Lee:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Discussion Paper: Charting the Course: Towards a Marine Conservation Areas Act. Manitoba supports the general intent of the proposed legislation as outlined in the Discussion Paper. We will be pleased to review and comment on the draft Act as it moves through the legislative process.

[Translation]

I wanted to share this with him so that he knows where to go in Manitoba, his home province, to get the opinion of the Manitoba government. If he wants, I can leave a copy with the committee.

I have several questions concerning this alleged trampling by the Canadian government on the jurisdiction of the Quebec government. My first question, one of many, is as follows. Should a dispute arise between the federal and provincial governments over the ownership of the seabed in a planned marine conservation area, would the Canadian government act unilaterally, yes or no?

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee: My answer to that would be that we would not.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If there are plans to establish a marine conservation area in a region where the provincial government - it doesn't matter which one - owns the seabed, is the approval of this government necessary before moving ahead with these plans?

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee: In a case in which there is clear ownership of resources by the province—and I guess the Saguenay would be a specific example—we would have to get an agreement with the province before we could proceed. We do not own those resources.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: With respect to the proposed areas, is the ownership of the seabed being challenged in any one of these instances?

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee: I'm not an expert in this area, but I would make two specific references. Madame Tremblay has pointed out an area in which there is a difference of opinion between the federal and provincial governments. I would also say that if you went to Hecate Strait in British Columbia, between the Queen Charlotte Islands and Prince Rupert, the province would hold the view that it has control over those resources.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I see. Let's look at these two specific cases for a moment. What is likely to happen?

• 1205

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee: In Gwaii Haanas, the Province of British Columbia has determined that it does not have a problem with the Government of Canada having the waters as part of a marine conservation area. To protect what it considers to be B.C.'s position—because the province is doing it without prejudice—the provincial government would go through the motions of transferring the bed of the waters to the federal government as if it owned them, without going through a dispute-settling mechanism. British Columbia doesn't have an issue in this case, but that's what would happen.

That would be one example, Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If I have this right, Mr. Chairman, in cases where the ownership of the seabed would be challenged—and this is happening in two cases—in order for the federal government to move forward, it would have to come to an agreement with the provincial government concerned, pursuant to which ownership of the seabed would be transferred to the federal government. Have I understood correctly?

If, for some reason, this transfer did not take place, the federal government would not proceed to establish a marine conservation area. Is that right?

Mr. Tom Lee: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If that were to happen, could the federal government look for another conservation area within the same zone, perhaps in a location where it owns the seabed?

Mr. Tom Lee: That's one possibility.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Dumas.

Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Good day. I have a few brief questions. The first one concerns stakeholders.

You mentioned that there were 3,000 stakeholders, 10 per cent of whom were more involved in the consultation process then the others. Of this 10 percent, what proportion were from Quebec?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: I can get the information for you and forward it along with the other documents that we will be sending you.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: Fine.

My second question concerns fishers. Currently, fishers across Canada report to one minister. We know that things did not go that smoothly over the past year and that the problems have not yet been resolved. What's going to happen when they have to report to two ministers? The fisheries minister will continue to play the dominant role, but fishers will also come under the authority of another department.

Mr. Bruce Amos: With respect to marine conservation areas, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is also responsible for Parks Canada, will primarily play a coordinating role. However, with respect to the legislation under consideration, the Minister responsible for Parks Canada and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will work together to establish the components of the management plans and the regulations governing management of the fishery.

Under the proposed legislation, the fisheries minister would continue to play an important role and no decision respecting management plans or regulations will be made by our minister without the backing and support of the fisheries minister.

That's one of the approaches we advocate in the proposed legislation to ensure that individuals and businesses involved in this industry can always look to the fisheries minister.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: In the case of the Saguenay marine park, an inter-departmental committee meets on a regular basis to discuss the concerns of fishers, an ongoing responsibility for DFO, as well as the concerns of shippers, who come under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada.

• 1210

One of the objectives of this committee is to identify problems that could potentially arise and to come up with solutions as quickly as possible, when necessary.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: Are you not concerned that a dispute might arise between ecologists and fishery industry people?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: I want to talk about the management of the marine park. As Mr. Amos mentioned earlier, we also have a coordinating committee in place composed of representatives of the scientific community and users of the park. Therefore, there are two or three different bodies that discuss the issues involved and work to defuse any potential conflict between stakeholders.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm finding it somewhat curious as I'm listening to comments from all my colleagues insofar as the meat and potatoes in this—

Mr. John Godfrey: Fish and chips.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Fish and chips. All the questions seem to be centring a little bit on jurisdiction, so that the principles in general seem to be very, very sound, and I haven't heard anybody questioning or challenging that.

I want to follow in line with Madame Tremblay's statement just before I do that. Mr. Dumas has commented on dealing with two different ministries, Fisheries and Heritage in this particular case, and whether that will cause confusion.

Sitting on the agriculture committee I certainly experience that many sectors of Canada deal with two different ministries, and do it very well, and I'd say Agriculture and Environment more specifically. There are many, many areas within Canada where they're jointly working with the two different ministries and working very well, so I would suspect that this would be no different and would create no more hardship for the person.

Going to the jurisdictional component of this and trying to help me resolve some of these issues in my mind... Madame Tremblay made a statement, something about staying out of our business, if I wrote it down as quickly as she said it. The statement concerns me because I want to make sure it's not something that's carried right across the country. It seemed to represent more so the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec rather than a policy that seems to be in the best interests of Canadians right across the country and seems to be jointly a federal-provincial responsibility as we travel across the country.

The question is, do most of the provinces agree or concur that there is a federal responsibility here as well as a provincial responsibility?

I have a supplementary question as well.

Mr. Tom Lee: There are two parts to the question. First, on your comments on the resource sector and management, I would support your view that it's not unusual. One would hope that historically over time we have arrived at the right solution, but if you look at resource management, say, at the provincial level, it's absolutely common to have a park act that covers part of the resources, a forestry act and a separate department, and an environment act that has one. So this complexity of managing resources with more than one department involved certainly is not a uniquely federal problem. In fact, it actually has formed historically the base of resource management in Canada.

On the matter of federal-provincial jurisdiction, the basis of the federal-provincial jurisdiction is always the Constitution, and so we would work off the constitutional base. As was pointed out, there are sometimes differences of interpretation on some elements, and we have some recognized here. Those would have to be dealt with. But I would say that after you get off the constitutional question, you are fundamentally into a partnership question, and in our experience there is not a province or a municipality or an organization associated with these resources that would not want to work in partnership.

• 1215

The fundamental element involved here that we have expressed and that is in the work we've gotten back is that partnership. You could take the position on Bonavista that it's federal jurisdiction, so we'll just go ahead and do it. That isn't the way the system works, and it won't work that way and we do not see it working that way.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Just to follow up on that, you used the words “joint responsibility as a problem, not just federally but provincially”, and I suggest the word “problem” is not necessarily the appropriate word, but rather it's an opportunity. I think as the system has evolved over the last number of years it's become an inherent responsibility jointly of different ministries to oversee different issues, and it's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Mr. Tom Lee: I was hoping that was the point I was making.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Does this federal government or, more specifically, I guess, does the ministry have a responsibility, not necessarily for discussion, but an actual responsibility to try to ensure there's a consistent approach or a consistent policy on a national level when working with the provinces rather than having a regional or patchwork approach as we travel across the country from coast to coast to coast?

Mr. Tom Lee: The answer is yes, and that is the basis of the framework document, so we can create areas, as we have in the national parks system, that are consistent in terms of the type of management that is occurring there, that the visitors' and users' expectations are consistently met. Obviously we're trying to connect these areas in the minds of Canadians as part of their country and their nation.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The second round is Mr. Mark, Ms. Tremblay, and Mr. Muise.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

Do you believe this bill would be better served if it came under the ministry of the environment? It's not really a park as most people perceive what a park is. I had a problem dealing with it when it was referred to as marine parks legislation and then I was told it's not really about parks. As soon as we talk about parks, you know what people mean. It's user-friendly and accessible and it's less than ecosystem management...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Hasn't the House ruled on that already?

Mr. Inky Mark: Not yet.

I was wondering if you thought it fits better with the environment component.

Mr. Tom Lee: I don't want to get into what are essentially machinery of government issues and where people belong and what departments and so on, but let me give you my personal perspective on it. It's that the government made the decision to place the national parks and national historic sites system within the Department of Canadian Heritage a number of years ago. As an organization, we feel very comfortable in that role. We have obviously a strong environmental role, but we are also deeply involved in serving Canadians. Twenty-three million people a year come to our places, and we tell them the stories of our country and the history and the natural history. We're very comfortable in that role.

The marine conservation system we regard as the direct parallel to the national parks system. It's serving many of the same purposes, and it has a slightly different management regime, but from a personal point of view, we believe it belongs in Canada's family of protected areas, the five areas we've outlined for you—the national parks, national historic sites, historic canals, the heritage river system, and the “heritage marine system”. So we're very comfortable with the placement of this.

• 1220

Mr. Inky Mark: In your legislation you will be controlling above the water as well as on and under the water. I'm surprised the Department of Transport is not part of your partnership here. Just exactly how much of an area are you going to control? That's one of the concerns of the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association.

Mr. Tom Lee: I have two answers to your question. It's interesting that you refer to the Department of Transport not being on the list because when I looked at this—I was going over this last night—I asked why they weren't on that list, because they are part of that partnership. They just don't happen to be on that list because they do not go about creating protected areas.

The three federal government departments that have the ability to create the protected areas are on the fish and wildlife side, Parks Canada, and Environment. But the transport is a part of it, and the regulation, if it's required, of transportation would be through their legislation. That's the first part of the response.

The second part, and I will go back to some of my earlier remarks, is if you take this system plan and you ultimately envisage when all of the places are in there, some of those places you would probably require a magnifying glass to find on this scale of map. It would be that small. Others would be bigger.

When you look at it, as I say, you're probably talking about something less than 2% to 3% of Canada's ocean area, and in fact probably substantially less, because while we have the capacity under the legislation to move into the outer economic zone between the 12 and 200 miles, the fact is the majority of our conservation areas would be closer in rather than out. So ultimately Canadians will dedicate a small but respectable portion of their ocean environment for conservation purposes.

Mr. Inky Mark: How will you restrict your air space above the conservation areas?

Mr. Tom Lee: We could do that in cooperation, again, with the Department of Transport, and we have those types of cooperative mechanisms in place where they're required.

Mr. Inky Mark: I wondered to what level. Is it below 2,000 feet?

Mr. Tom Lee: It would vary. The regulations vary according to individual needs.

Mr. Inky Mark: My last question is this. Like some of my colleagues, I do have a concern with overlap and competition within the different portfolios, and my feeling is that this piece of legislation probably supersedes the rest of the other organizations because it's about protection.

In fact, I asked David Anderson outside one day and he didn't think there would be a problem with fisheries. Will your legislation supersede other legislation?

Mr. Tom Lee: It will not supersede, but it does—and I present this as a positive aspect of this legislation—encourage and in fact mandate in certain instances that the management organizations come together so one can't go down one path and one down the other.

So in the case of Fisheries Minister Anderson, he is clearly the minister responsible for fisheries. He's responsible to have a plan in place. His responsibility, to the extent it is modified to any extent within this legislation, is a requirement that this be developed within the overall management plan for the area. If federal governments were cooperating, they would do that anyway, but this clearly establishes a legislative framework for them.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.)): You mentioned control, in relation to Mr. Mark, but clearly many enforcement issues would fall within the purview of the coast guard, and therefore the fisheries ministry and others, such as Transport, so there is some sort of coordinating mechanism.

Mr. Tom Lee: It even goes beyond that. Under our respective legislation, people from federal departments are able to become enforcers of our legislation in national parks, in national marine conservation areas and vice versa. That exists not only with the federal government but with provincial governments. So, generally, we have the ability, at the request of the province, to enforce provincial wildlife measures, and their wildlife officers have the ability to enforce our national park wildlife measures. We work cooperatively across all jurisdictions on law enforcement.

• 1225

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): When you get beyond the coastline into territorial seas, for example, you clearly have to have fisheries involved.

Mr. Tom Lee: We're in quite a different environment when we move out there.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): They have made considerable extensions of their competence in this area, have they not, with their specialization and technical skills?

Mr. Tom Lee: I wouldn't be the one to answer that.

Alain, do you have that answer?

Mr. Alain Roy (Legal Counsel, Department of Canadian Heritage): Part of the answer in this bill comes from clause 8, for example. Clause 8 says the minister is responsible for management and control of areas not assigned by law to any other minister of the crown. So we don't see this bill as superseding all the other legislation, as Mr. Mark was asking. Rather, we're complementing other areas that already exist.

For example, we're not superseding the ministers of fisheries; we're complementing in areas. If we overlap or touch upon an area of the Minister of Transport or of the Minister of Fisheries, there is a section in place indicating it has to be a joint recommendation by our minister and the minister the regulations touch upon.

So the key phrase in clause 8 is where it says “in relation to matters not assigned by law to any other” department. We're complementing. For example, in terms of pollution, we're not going to supersede the Canada Shipping Act; that act will still prevail. There may be other particular areas of the environment the minister will be responsible for. So the whole act is constructed to complement the other ministries as opposed to superseding.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): It's changed, in a way, from a system of coordination between equal and sovereign ministries to a separate sort of sub-ministry, or secretaryship of state, with autonomy but with lesser powers than the previous ministries by the nature of the...

Mr. Alain Roy: There will be a lot of consultation between the different ministries. There were extensive consultations even trying to come up with a tax among the various departments.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Madame.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: The agency's budget has been cut substantially in recent years. Our attempts to adjust admission fees so that people living near the park can access it more readily than tourists have been unsuccessful. When we consider what has happened to sheep farmers because the agri-food agency had a mandate to become self-reliant, we have to wonder what the implementation of this program means to the future of the people involved.

Have program costs been assessed? Where is the money for these marine conservation areas going to come from? What type of planning has your agency done? Are you looking at a 50-year timetable, or is your program time frame much shorter than that? Again, where is the money going to come from? What kind of taxes are being considered? Could prices increase everywhere in order to finance these marine conservation areas? What is the situation exactly?

[English]

Mr. Tom Lee: We're referring a little bit to what has happened and what may happen in the future. Over the past number of years we have revised our fees in Parks Canada, beginning in 1995. All of the major fees, as they impact visitors, have been made. You will see annual adjustments of 25¢, some changes here and there, but the overall update was done.

• 1230

Where did that take us in terms of visitors? I don't have the final season's statistics for this year, but the last projection I saw in late October, early November was that this year we may have broken all attendance records for national parks and national historic sites. That is with the revised fees in place. So we fundamentally believe we have made appropriate decisions with regard to fees, and Canadians are receiving them very well.

Having said that, Ms. Tremblay, there is no major change in terms of further revenues in that area to be made. Roughly 75% of the agency's income comes from appropriations from Parliament, and roughly 25% comes from revenues of various types, not just from users but from commercial, hotel, ski areas, and so on. That will not be able to vary much in the near future, so as we look ahead, we're looking at roughly the 75% to 25% item.

As we bring additional areas of this nature on stream, we will have to go back to government from time to time as these evolve and request the appropriate support from the appropriations element, because many of these will not be large income generators. With the majority of them, we're not going to see the volume of visitors we get to the national parks and historic sites. So from time to time we will have to go back to government to seek further support in these areas.

We have some short-term objectives for where we would like to be, and these are largely expressed on the map we've given you. We would like very much to move ahead and formally create Gwaii Haanas. It's part of a federal-provincial agreement that we will go ahead, but we need to formally move ahead and make it happen.

We would like to move ahead on the Strait of Georgia. We would like to move ahead on one area in the Great Lakes; we hope it will be Lake Superior. We would like to move ahead on at least one area on the east coast, hopefully Bonavista. There's possibly one additional area. We would like to move ahead in one area in the Arctic at this time, because then you start to see the pattern emerge. So in the short term, looking ahead over the next few years, we hope to bring on three or four more additional areas and then move on from there.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: But you can't tell me today exactly what it is going to cost to set up these areas. If you were told to establish a five-year program, what would that cost you? You have no idea. No cost projections have been done.

[English]

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: We don't have any projections, Madam Tremblay, because they will be extremely variable. When we look at our national parks system and putting in place each one of those areas, at the beginning you're probably talking about one million dollars a year each in operating costs, and then the development costs would be extremely variable. Some would be very small. On the other hand, as you know, in the Saguenay it was quite expensive. It was a major effort.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: I possibly should have asked this question at the beginning, but I had some concerns, not about the procedure but just from a grounds point of view.

• 1235

We have a park system that is not yet finished, and there have been two MCAs that have been negotiated and almost formalized—the Saguenay and Gwaii Haanas. When those two things—the parks system not completed yet and being able to put together two MCAs—did work, what prompted the advancement of this bill?

Mr. Tom Lee: First of all, I think we outlined to you that this area has been developing over a period of time in small pieces, and at some time the government has to put the thing together and look at the big picture. I think that's fundamentally it, rather than saying we're going to do something over here, but we're not going to do something... So the question is, what is the long-range direction? That arises as you start to see the Saguenay pop out here, Fathom Five here, Gwaii Haanas there, and somebody asks us where we're going. Fundamentally, there's a need to say where we're going.

I think the other element is—and to some extent this is anticipatory—that the government has outlined an objective to try to move as quickly as possible toward the completion of the national parks system. As we do that, we need to go on to this element of the larger conservation system. So that is the second point.

I would connect the third point to the broader government initiative with regard to oceans and the Oceans Act. You're bringing in some comprehensive legislation on oceans, so you need to properly position this element of ocean protection when you do that. I think those are the three major reasons for doing it at this time.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): I would remind you that the meeting tomorrow will occur 15 minutes early because there is some administrative business, so we'll meet in closed session.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: We should wait until the chairman returns. Tomorrow, we'll have 15 minutes...

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Ted McWhinney): Yes, tomorrow.

[English]

I'd like to thank the expert witnesses for a very clear and interesting testimony.

We'll meet in room 209 here tomorrow at 3.15 p.m. The meeting is adjourned.