CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 16, 1999

• 1107

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I call the meeting of the Standing Committee on Heritage to order. We are sitting today to study bill C-48, an Act Respecting Marine Conservation Areas.

[English]

We are dealing today with the study of Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas.

Appearing before us as a witness on behalf of the World Wildlife Fund we have Josh Laughren, the senior manager; and appearing on behalf of the NMCA Feasibility Study Advisory Committee we have

[Translation]

Mr. John Melindy, project coordinator,

[English]

and Mr. Quinton and Mr. Marc Kielley, who appeared before us last week.

I will give you the floor. We'll start with Mr. Laughren. Mr. Laughren, could you confine your remarks to about 15 minutes so the other interveners can be heard and so there will be time for questions from the members.

Mr. Josh Laughren (Senior Manager, World Wildlife Fund): Certainly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the committee, for the opportunity for us to comment today.

First a bit about our background and who we are. The World Wildlife Fund is the largest conservation organization in Canada. It's part of a global organization with programs and offices in over 90 countries, with over 4.7 million supporters. Our principal mandate is the conservation of biological diversity.

WWF Canada currently administers our work through four programs: endangered species, endangered spaces, toxicology work, and our international program. The endangered spaces program some of you may be familiar with. It was launched in 1989 to establish a representative network of terrestrial protected areas by the year 2000 and marine protected areas by the year 2010. The spaces program has deep roots at the regional and community levels, and it has coordinators in every province and territory working to implement protected areas, both marine and terrestrial, at the local level and with community support.

• 1110

WWF has a wealth of experience in marine conservation. For 15 years we have supported the community of Clyde River up in Baffin Island in its attempts to establish a protected area for bowhead whales in Igaliqtuuq, or Isabella Bay. We were active in the original commitment to establish a marine park in Gwaii Haanas in 1989 and continue to be active there today. We're also very active in the process to protect the Sable Gully on the Scotian Shelf.

For years WWF has funded local and community initiatives related to marine conservation. We have a long-term commitment to working with communities, industry, governments, and first nations to complete a system of marine protected areas.

WWF Canada supports Bill C-48 in principle as a necessary and overdue tool in marine conservation. However, our experience in working with protected areas leads us to believe that a couple of crucial amendments are necessary to ensure the bill meets its conservation objectives.

We're going to start out by outlining why we support the bill in principle, and the best way to do that is by addressing some of the concerns that have been raised to date, both in the House and at this table. I will then outline what I see as the key strengths of the act, followed by a discussion of our main areas of concern.

First of all, it has been raised that Bill C-48 is unnecessary duplication, that this is best left to the Oceans Act. I wanted to chat a bit about that. I don't agree with that at all. I think each program by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, by the Canadian Wildlife Service, and by Parks Canada serves a different and important role in marine conservation. CWS, Canadian Wildlife Service, establishes protected areas for the protection of seabirds mainly, and occasionally marine mammals. DFO has a mandate to establish marine protected areas for a variety of reasons, mainly to protect key features such as endangered species' habitat, spawning areas, and unique physical features. Parks Canada is the only one that has a real mandate to conserve large zoned areas representative of Canada's large-scale marine regions to ensure that future generations have the ability to enjoy the full range of Canada's marine diversity.

The Oceans Act was not meant to eliminate the role of other departments in the marine environment but to establish leadership and coordination roles to make sure the departments weren't acting in isolation but were acting together. I think the claim that the Oceans Act now means that Parks has no mandate in the marine environment is simply a misinterpretation of the meaning of the Oceans Act. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that Parks Canada has done a lot of work to avoid duplication in Bill C-48 and they should be applauded for that. Fisheries regulations, navigation, and marine safety have all been left to the appropriate minister.

There is an unprecedented effort to recognize the need for agreement with other ministries and other ministers and agencies, jurisdictions and first nations in this bill. The bill mandates consultation, in subclauses 9(1), 10(1), 11(1), 11(2) and 11(3), with agencies, coastal and fishing communities, and the public for the development, implementation and review of management plans. This is not a power grab by a minister. This bill, I believe, shows genuine effort to work with other ministries and all affected parties.

The second criticism I've heard levelled at the bill is that Parks has no mandate or no capacity or knowledge in working in the marine environment. I don't think that is fair either. Parks Canada has been developing and refining marine policy in the system plan since 1978. They've had a formal parks marine policy and system plan since 1986. The policy was redrafted in 1984 to reflect the learning that Parks Canada had undergone. In the past 20 years Parks Canada has had three national consultation sessions on their marine parks policy. They have a commitment and precedents in Gwaii Haanas, Pacific Rim, Fathom Five and Saguenay. They have ongoing studies in Bonavista Bay, which is represented here today, the southern Gulf Islands and western Lake Superior. The southern Gulf Islands study is just under way.

They are not newcomers to marine conservation. They have a better-developed marine conservation protected area policy than any other agency, including DFO. The drafting of Bill C-48 is based on their broad, long-term public consultation and years of experience in managing pilot projects in different regions, and frankly, no other agency can match the thought and effort that they've put into their system planning in protected areas. So I think to cast them in the light of newcomers to marine conservation and to marine protected areas is just not correct. It doesn't reflect the truth of the matter.

So getting on to the key strengths, there are some key strengths I wanted to outline that we see as really important to Bill C-48. As a matter of fact, if these are to change, then we would need to go back and reconsider whether we can still support the bill in principle.

One of the strengths of Bill C-48 is that it establishes clear authority to protect offshore marine areas in all of Canada's 200-mile EEZ, which wasn't there before.

The preamble clearly establishes the precautionary approach and states that MCAs must be of “sufficient extent and such configuration as to maintain healthy ecosystems”.

• 1115

Subclause 4(3) indicates that conservation areas and conservation area reserves shall be managed “without compromising the structure and function of the ecosystems with which they are associated”. It's a strong point.

The MCAs can be established through Order in Council but can't be shrunk except through an act of Parliament.

The minister must report at least every two years on the state of MCAs and progress towards completion of a representative network.

Subclause 9(3) establishes that the primary considerations in the development and modification of management plans shall be principles of ecosystem management and the precautionary principle. This is crucial.

Non-renewable natural exploration and development and ocean dumping are prohibited—except in the case of dumping without a permit.

There's clear responsibility for Parks Canada to consult broadly with affected parties and communities in the development and the revision of the management plans.

I think these should be recognized as very strong portions of the bill..

To go into our submission, we made a brief, which I hope people have received, in which we made 14 recommendations that, through WWF's experience with protected areas, we feel with strengthen the bill. We believe these are important and helpful and we urge you to consider them.

I'd like to concentrate today on our most important facts, the three parts we believe endanger the ability of the act to deliver on its conservation mandate.

Number one is control by the minister. As I said earlier, Parks Canada has done a lot of work to recognize the mandate of other ministries in this bill and to allow things like fishing efforts and fishing regulations to be controlled by Fisheries and Oceans. We suggest they've gone too far in that, as a matter of fact. Parks Canada needs to retain final accountability for the management of marine conservation areas.

Right now, the way it's set out with fishing efforts, for example, unless there's agreement by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, everything remains at the status quo. Restrictions can only be put in place when both agree. I would suggest that activities should only occur when both agree.

Outside of protected areas, the implication is that everything can occur “unless”; the onus is to prove that something can't occur. Inside of protected areas, inside of conservation areas, the onus should be switched so that nothing occurs until there's been agreement and until it's been shown to be within the spirit of the act.

So I would suggest the minister needs to maintain final decision-making and—we've written this up in the brief—that instead of saying that restrictions can only occur when there is agreement, it should be put so that all fishing activity is “under the agreement of”, so that onus is shifted. It's very important.

The second point that's important is the outside activities and monitoring we need to consider. One of the crucial differences in marine ecosystems compared to terrestrial ecosystems is the fluid nature of the water environment, and because of that, outside activities, activities upstream of the conservation area either from land or water sources, have a huge ability to impact the ecosystem within the protected area.

We would suggest the wording needs to be changed so that where a substance is discharged or deposited, not just within the conservation area but also in such a way as to be clearly incorporated into a marine conservation area, there must be ways to mitigate that damage. That is also why it's crucial for monitoring to take place within the conservation area. I would suggest that should go into the act itself.

Our main point in our submission, and I'll make it my main point here today, is the list of prohibited activities that are listed in the bill, which currently are limited to dumping, except with a permit under CEPA, and non-renewable resource extraction and exploration. While these are indeed important and necessary, they aren't enough in and of themselves.

While we recognize that conservation areas should be there for the enjoyment of people and that people need to be a part of them, I think it's important to consider the impacts of some different activities in the marine environment. We suggest very strongly that the list of prohibited activities be expanded to include trawling, bottom trawling and dragging, dredging and finfish aquaculture. I make the distinction between finfish and shellfish and other forms of aquaculture; it's an important one. We say these should be excluded from the marine conservation areas because they're known to cause long-term large-scale habitat destruction and are incompatible with the spirit of the bill.

• 1120

There are a lot of different concerns with these activities, too much to get through in a really short time today, but I'll quickly list some of the key problems we see with each of these, specifically finfish aquaculture and bottom trawling.

In finfish aquaculture, some of the major issues are the increased pesticide levels found in the wild and non-target species, disease transmission to wild species both within the species in question and across species, eutrophication of coastal shore areas, increased risk of algal bloom, increase in turbidity, loss of benthic habitats important to commercial species, and changes in sediment composition.

Bottom trawling is at least an equal concern. Evidence is mounting very quickly concerning the effect on the benthic environment, and the effects include reduction of habitat complexity through smoothing of the sea floor and removal of species that provide habitat for others, like corals and kelp; resuspension of bottom sediments and increased turbidity, changing community structure and species composition; reduction of abundance, biomass, and species diversity, especially of benthic invertebrates; and the eradication of long-lived, slow-growing benthic organisms such as coral. Some of the cold-water corals can take up to 500 years to grow, and the constant trawling in these areas certainly doesn't allow them in any sense to come back.

I'd like to stress again that I'm not suggesting here that these activities can't occur anywhere, but I'm suggesting they shouldn't be occurring within a protected area.

If we're serious about protecting and conserving representative examples, I think we need to be conscious of what Daniel Pauley from the west coast referred to as the shifting baseline. We accept as natural that which we were familiar with when we were young, essentially. We need to remember that the ocean environment in Canada has been heavily impacted through fishing and through other activities for upwards of 500 years in a lot of areas. Now, I'm not suggesting that we can eliminate any impact that humans have or that we should try, but I think we need to be aware of the impacts we're having and we should take reasonable steps to mitigate them, for our own economic well-being if for no other reason.

We refer to MCAs as areas managed for conservation, and to MPAs, protected areas. If we are not prohibiting activities that cause these long-term, significant, proven disruptions of habitat and species, I would ask what we're protecting them from. And please note that I don't say we should keep them free from human use, only from those large-scale industrial uses that have been proven to cause habitat damage especially.

WWF is not ignoring human or social concerns with respect to MPAs. Marine conservation areas and MPAs are not punitive. They are a necessary part of the solution, and if done properly, they can help restore and should be helping to restore and ensure healthy ecosystems, which are fundamental to having healthy fisheries, which are fundamental to having healthy coastal communities.

We've seen in the marine environment, in a way that we haven't seen it in the terrestrial environment, the cost of mismanagement. We've seen the social cost, we've seen the economic cost to those communities when we don't take proper conservation concerns. Surely we don't need any more proof of that.

The Chairman: Mr. Laughren, have you long to go?

Mr. Josh Laughren: No, about 30 seconds.

I believe it will be up to the local communities to decide if they want an MCA and to draft out the management plan, but let's be clear that what they're deciding on is whether they want a conservation area within the region. This is about conservation.

We've seen the fisheries collapse. We've seen the changes that have come along in recent years. Parks Canada has been developing this plan for upwards of 20 years. We've had lots of consultation on it, including this section, which hopefully will result in some amendments, and it is time to move on with this, to get on with the passage and the implementation of this.

Thank you for the opportunity. We hope the committee will accept these proposed amendments.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Melindy, are you ready to address us?

Mr. John Melindy (Project Coordinator, NMCA Feasibility Study Advisory Committee): Mr. Quinton will be speaking.

The Chairman: Mr. Quinton.

Mr. Marlon Quinton (NMCA Feasibility Study Advisory Committee): First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the standing committee for giving us this opportunity to speak and have input into Bill C-48.

This brief is submitted to the House of Commons standing committee on behalf of the Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame Bay National Marine Conservation Area Advisory Committee Cooperation. The NMCA committee is comprised of 20 members—11 professional fish harvesters, representatives from aquaculture, fish processors, economic development boards, and residents of Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame Bay. The board was appointed by Secretary of State Andy Mitchell and the Honourable Sandra Kelly, Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

• 1125

The advisory committee has been charged with the task of examining the feasibility of establishing a national marine conservation area within the section of Newfoundland coastline that spans from Bonavista Bay to Notre Dame Bay. The overall role of the advisory committee is to determine if the proposed NMCA is indeed compatible with traditional and existing marine uses and if there is sufficient stakeholder support for such an initiative.

In our analysis, we have also considered Bill C-48, clause-by-clause; Parks Canada's guidelines and operating policies manual, the policy underpinning for the legislation; the National Parks Act; and the Oceans Act.

As a committee, we have held a series of stakeholder meetings to exchange information and obtain feedback on the suitability of the proposed marine park, to date. Stakeholder workshops have been held on commercial fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, and mistrust of government and how to build trust.

In our deliberations we have taken a careful look at what impact this initiative would have on the Newfoundland people who earn a living on the water and at whether Bill C-48 and the proposed NMCA could negatively affect traditional and existing livelihoods, incomes, property rights, and freedoms. The committee's task has been particularly challenging, given the fact that no models exist in the world where traditional fisheries, aquaculture and activities—for example, hunting and fishing—coexist in harmony with a marine park.

We believe the experience and knowledge we have gathered as a committee is beneficial to the standing committee in determining the consequences of Bill C-48.

As to our industry profile of Notre Dame Bay and Bonavista Bay, it is important for the standing committee to realize that there is a substantial commercial industry operating within the boundaries of the proposed NMCA. This proposed NMCA takes in approximately 25,000 to 30,000 square kilometres of coastline.

Within the area, there is a large inshore fishery numbering approximately 2,000 licence holders, 35 aquaculture licence holders, plus some of the finest cod farming sites that could be developed in the near future.

Species fished in the proposed area include: toad, rock, and snow crab; turbot; lobster; shrimp; herring; mackerel; cod; lumpfish; squid; sea urchins; whelk; kelp; various flatfish species; and capelin.

On the aquaculture side, primary species cultured are mussels, scallops, and cod. Approximately 85% to 90% of Newfoundland's mussel production takes place within the proposed NMCA and buffer zones.

Despite media reports, the fishing industry is rebounding in Newfoundland. In total, the fishing and aquaculture industry on the northeast coast is worth almost $600 million.

Conservation is a motherhood issue. The committee would like to stress categorically that it supports the fundamental need for conservation. In fact, the fishing and aquaculture sectors are major advocates of sustainable development. Fishers understand the need for conservation all too well, and we do not have to recount the impacts of the cod moratorium on Newfoundland's coastal communities. Since that time, there have been considerable changes to how the fishery is managed.

Now, through the Oceans Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is empowered to declare marine protected areas to conserve species under threat. In view of this fact, we are mystified as to why Canadian Heritage is attempting to run a parallel conservation initiative under a separate piece of legislation.

In Bonavista Bay, for example, fishermen have become personally involved in a lobster enhancement to conserve the species for current and future generations. Fishers and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are working cooperatively to determine the status of fish stocks through the sentinel fishery program.

In fact, all fish species and the aquaculture industry are under strict and clearly defined management regimes. So this begs the question, what are we trying to protect that is not already under an existing conservation management plan, and why is Canadian Heritage attempting to mirror the mandate and responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

Our position statement is that overall we feel Bill C-48 should be withdrawn. We cannot see any particular reason for making this bill into law. It is felt that this bill would undermine the authority of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and transfer powers for marine conservation and habitat protection to Parks Canada, which has no management or scientific expertise in the marine field. This is of great concern to the fishing and aquaculture sector and must not be permitted to occur.

From a fiscal perspective, it is highly irresponsible for the Government of Canada to consider creating another level of bureaucracy when powers for fishery and aquaculture matters have already been vested in the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans under the Oceans Act and the Fisheries Act. Not only is this a waste of taxpayers' money, it will create a considerable interagency conflict between the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the stakeholders will be at the brunt of this conflict.

• 1130

Concerning the proposed NMCA in Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame Bay, the advisory board members feel there is at great risk of economic loss and job displacement to the fishing and aquaculture sectors. If this marine practice is approved for Newfoundland, the resulting regulatory climate that would result from an NMCA would create a tremendous uncertainty, and would discourage private and public investment in the fishing and aquaculture sectors.

In summary, we're opposed to the creation of a marine conservation area in Bonavista and Notre Dame Bay. We have not taken this position lightly. Conservation is important to all stakeholders. However, it is paramount that the impacts on people are equally considered. Unfortunately, people's concerns have become secondary to a federal department mandate to establish a marine conservation area program. It is felt that provision for marine conservation areas should best be addressed under section 35 of the Oceans Act.

We would now like to highlight specific sections of Bill C-48 that are problematic and form the basis for our position.

The preamble suggests that people, human beings, do not have a place in marine ecosystems. In this area, there are over 60,000 inhabitants in over 130 communities. Park principles take precedence over people. Under the interpretation clause, which is clause 2, the word “ecosystem” means “a dynamic complex of animal, plant and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit.” This definition does not recognize the legitimate place of people to exist in an ecosystem.

Marine conservation areas are permanent fixtures according to subclause 5(1), “Establishment or enlargement”, and subclause 5(3), “No reduction of area”. The committee notes that Bill C-48 makes provision for the establishment and enlargement of areas, but there is no provision for the removal of any portion of an area once it has been established.

Given that national marine conservation areas are new to Canada, irreversibility is a concern. People are being asked to accept a concept that is based on their understanding of words contained in law and policy that might be applied some time in the future. It is entirely probable that the administrators of a national marine conservation area may be a completely new, different set of players from those involved with the area's establishment. The legislation should contain a reference to the abolishment of a national marine conservation area once it is no longer achieving its intended purposes.

Administration comes out of clause 6 and subclause 9(1). The advisory committee feels that a five-year time period is too long before an initial management plan is prepared. The coastal communities and resource users must know the aspects of a management plan prior to a national marine conservation area being established. Uncertainty breeds risk. Uncertainty about government regulations breeds even greater risk. Overall, the consideration for a five-year plan is not conducive to attracting any investment needed to grow the fisheries and aquaculture sectors.

On subclause 9(2), the committee is of the opinion that a time period of five years is too long before a national marine conservation area management plan is reviewed. Plans must be clear at the outset, and must be reviewed annually.

On subclause 9(3), primary consideration should be given to coastal communities' sustainability.

Subclause 9(4) is of significance to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In all instances, the province in which the national marine conservation area is located should be included in this clause.

On subclause 10(2), the progress report should be presented annually.

On subclauses 11(1), 11(2) and 11(3), the advisory committee does not see the benefit of establishing additional advisory committees to review, evaluate and make recommendations to the minister regarding the management of a national marine conservation area. If legislated under the Oceans Act as recommended, there is provision for advisory boards for each and every harvestable species. This structure would help prevent outside influences from affecting the management of local marine environments.

• 1135

Paragraph 12(a) refers to “no interest in public lands”. According to the definitions clause, “public lands” is defined to include lands and submerged lands—for example, the seabed. The paragraph concludes; “in a marine conservation area may be disposed of”.

This paragraph is of major concern to fishers, aquaculturists and residents of the study area. As a consequence of this paragraph, we foresee a situation in which individuals would not be permitted to use, sell or transfer ownership of their fishing or aquaculture enterprise. Essentially, after building up a business, one could be denied the right of a property owner to realize proceeds from the sale of that business. Also, individuals will be denied the option of transferring ownership of the business to family members, the historical practice in Newfoundland rural culture, where the fishery has evolved through many generations. From the perspective of individual property owners, it appears they also will be denied the right to sell their property, such as a cabin or a wharf, in a national marine conservation area. Residents perceive this to be an invasion of their individual property rights.

Paragraph 12(b) states that “no person shall use or occupy public lands in a marine conservation area.” This section has the potential to put fishers and aquaculturists out of business. We interpret this section to mean that fishermen and aquaculturists would not be able to use the marine seabed, a fundamental requirement for their business. We foresee a situation in which no nets could be deployed for the lobster, scallop, crab, herring or sea urchin fisheries, and moorings for aquaculture could not be allowed.

We strenuously object to the inclusion of clause 12, and we question Parks Canada's intent and its knowledge of the commercial marine sector. The perception is that Parks Canada has an objective to belay traditional fishing and aquaculture from national marine conservation areas. We are alarmed that restrictions are contemplated in Bill C-48 such that, if approved, they would have the weight of law. Furthermore, we find that Parks Canada's mandate is a contradiction. On one end, Parks Canada claims its mandate is to protect and conserve culture and heritage, yet the language in clause 12 has the potential to destroy Newfoundland culture by denying traditional marine rights and freedoms.

On clause 13, “Exploration and exploitation”, the committee understands that before a national marine conservation area is established anywhere in Canada, a comprehensive study will be conducted in the proposed area to determine the potential value of soil, gas, minerals, aggregates and other inorganic matter. The committee further understands that a national marine conservation area may not be established if the economic value of using an area for mineral exploration, etc., is greater than it would be if it is used for a national marine conservation area. However, what happens if the opportunity for mineral exploration that exists is not realized until after a national marine conservation area is established? Subclause 4(3) of the act suggests that, once in place, a national marine conservation area becomes a permanent entity by law.

On “Regulations”, clause 16, we comment on subclause 16(7). The superintendent may “vary any of the requirements of the regulations in relation to the marine conservation area”. This implies the transfer of authority from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to a Parks Canada superintendent. Such a provision is ludicrous, without precedent, and should be struck from the legislation.

Zoning concept incompatible: The proposed zoning management outlined in the Parks Canada guidelines and operating policies is incompatible with traditional and existing usage. It would result in job displacement, loss of income, and conflict between government departments and their stakeholders.

If we examine the zoning arrangement proposed by Parks Canada in its policy document, it calls for three management zones. Zone I is the preservation area, the zero activity area. Renewable resource harvesting will not be permitted. Zone II is the natural environment, a buffer zone around zone I. Recreation or hunting, fishing and aquaculture would be prohibited. Zone III is the conservation zone. Fishing and aquaculture would fall under this category. However, marine outdoor recreation and public education activity would take precedence over aquaculture.

• 1140

Under this scheme, fishing and aquaculture are not permitted in zones I and II. As a result, individuals will be displaced and will suffer loss of income. Potential developments in this area will not be realized because of these incomprehensible zoning restrictions.

Aquaculture requires specific site characteristics to be feasible and must have reasonable access to growing areas that have the desirable biophysical characteristics to support its farm activity. This opportunity will be denied.

The potential for argument on migratory fish stocks would be unending. For example, it would hardly make sense to apply a certain level of conservation to a stock that migrates to a designated conservation area and subject it to another level of fishing pressure when it migrates outside the conservation zone.

The potential implications of this scenario are far-reaching and may result in action to extend the conservation zone beyond its original boundaries. This would exacerbate an already untenable situation.

Section 3.3 of the policy manual. Of great concern is the language used in this section of Parks Canada's policy manual to outline which activities are appropriate in zone III. Basically, all fishing, navigation, outdoor marine recreation, and public education activities will take priority over aquaculture. This language shows an anti-aquaculture bias and is in violation of the federal aquaculture development strategy as well as the provincial coastal development policy. Moreover, it does not recognize the right of aquaculturalists to have equal access to marine resources, nor does it recognize the historical presence of commercial aquaculture activities already operating in the area. This zoning concept is totally unacceptable and unworkable to the fishing and aquaculture sectors.

The zoning concept is highly contentious. Some of the additional questions put forth by residents of the study area regarding zonings include: when and how will these zones be determined; what will be the boundaries of these zones; what types of fishing gear will be permitted; will fishing be stopped if threatened species are spotted inside a national marine conservation area; will seal hunting be permitted in all zones; what will be the restrictions on traditional hunting in the various zones; will there be different fees for different zones; will recreational fishing and boating be permitted, and if so, in which zones; and will privately owned cabins have to be moved from certain islands? Aquaculturalists are asking where we can and cannot operate.

Security of tenure threatened, reference section 1.4.2, 4.4 of the policy manual. Aquaculturalists believe these sections will allow provincial rights to crown lands to be passed over to the federal government. The federal crown will have the ultimate authority over land and water usage and will have the power to terminate lease arrangements when the term expires. This would have serious consequences for existing aquaculturalists who already have vested rights of ownership.

These are just a few of the numerous concerns with the zoning concept. It should be clear that this concept is unworkable and insupportable and has the potential to displace a significant portion of the Newfoundland coastal economy, which is struggling to diversify under the cod moratorium. Furthermore, there is no intention to compensate individuals and/or operations that could potentially be displaced under the zoning scheme.

In conclusion, generally speaking, the NMCA committee is supportive of conservation, and many of its members are active in conservation initiatives in their own respective industries. However, it is felt that Bill C-48 is seriously flawed, as demonstrated in the foregoing brief.

With minor amendments to the Oceans Act, provision could be made to include marine conservation areas within DFO's mandate. This would eliminate the overlap and redundancy between Bill C-48 and the Oceans Act. It would also eliminate the potential for undermining the authority of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Just as important, it would restore the responsibility for the sectoral management of the marine habitat protection of species to the DFO where the species experience resides.

• 1145

The NMCA proposed for Newfoundland is considered a bad fit in view of operating requirements for the fishing and aquaculture industries and Parks Canada's mandate and philosophy. The marine conservation area concept and mandate are simply incompatible with the existing commercial marine activities. Existing stakeholders would not be permitted to sell or transfer their enterprises or leases or realize proceeds from their business as other Canadians are permitted. Implementation of an NMCA in Newfoundland would result in a loss of tenure, job displacement, and a loss of income and investment opportunity in a province struggling to rebuild and diversify its coastal economy.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Quinton.

I think we're having an especially interesting morning. The World Wildlife Fund thinks the prohibited activities don't go far enough, that the powers of the Minister of Canadian Heritage should be strengthened, and that under the bill too much power is given to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The advisory committee feels that Bill C-48 goes too far, that it should be left in the hands of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and has no place at all, and that the activities that are prohibited are far too stringent. So I think we have a very interesting dichotomy here.

I'll now open it up to questions, starting with Mr. Mark.

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

Thank you for coming before the committee this morning.

My first question is to Mr. Laughren. According to the World Wildlife Fund, how much of the Canadian coastal area should be protected, and if so, by whom and where?

Mr. Josh Laughren: We try to stay away from advocating a percentage of a land or sea area that should be protected. Our view is that we should protect the full range of marine conditions out there, the same as we do terrestrially. That's the accepted terrestrial position.

This is a theory and practice that's being accepted more and more across the world. We've done a lot of work in the last four years on developing a system of mapping based on physical and oceanographic features that maps out the marine environments into units that approximate the range of habitat conditions in the marine environment. Our position is that each of those should be sampled. Now, what percentage of land that would cover is really impossible to say.

With regard to how it should be done, my personal view and the view of the WWF is that the practices of each of the three departments with a mandate in oceans conservation, which is Parks Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Canadian Wildlife Service, should all count toward establishing a system of protected areas in Canada. Each should do their own thing, so to speak, and establish conservation areas, marine protected areas, national wildlife areas, and marine areas for the reasons outlined in their mandate. The resulting emergent phenomenon from all that is a system of protected areas that covers all habitats and provides a buffer for management changes and environmental changes, just the natural changes that go on in the environment.

Mr. Inky Mark: As you witnessed this morning, there's always the other point of view.

Has your organization come up with some kind of dispute resolution that would assist in this determination of what should be protected?

Mr. Josh Laughren: The quick answer to that is no. This is going to be a tough debate all the way through. We've done a lot of work terrestrially, for example, in minimizing conflicts. We do believe that fundamentally these areas are only going to work if there's buy-in by the local community. We've done a lot of work with industry terrestrially, especially with the oil and gas industry. We've worked for years and years to come up with agreements on areas where we do agree and agreements where they work together with us to figure out what areas should be protected and what areas shouldn't. There is room to manoeuvre as to where we go, and we should do that with full input from industry, communities especially, and first nations when that's relevant. We do believe if you just impose these things against the will of the people in the area, then they're just not going to be effective.

The Chairman: This will be your last question.

• 1150

Mr. Inky Mark: I'd like to ask the feasibility study advisory committee if they could comment on the consultation process that has already occurred and what they think of it.

Mr. Marlon Quinton: We've conducted four workshops. I attended a public meeting that was called and there were 500 people present. In Newfoundland 500 people attending a meeting is an alarming figure. The question they were asking was, what is the need for Bill C-48?

Bill C-48 has the potential to destroy the Newfoundland cultural way of life, the way it's stated in legislation. I'm a believer in conservation. I've worked hand in hand with science. People understand conservation. It's not like 10 or 12 years ago. People understand the issues and their lives depend on conservation, but why create another form of bureaucracy? Why create another set of rules and the destruction they can see in this law? It could just displace people in Newfoundland. The impact factor will be unreal. You would almost have to live there to predetermine the consequences.

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): I am very happy with this morning's presentations. On one hand, the Bloc Québécois does not really understand why the World Wildlife Fund Canada is trying to give to the Canadian Minister of Heritage absolute power to make decisions about every aspect of marine conservation area management. I think the other group just answered our question. Their brief is well founded and deals with reality. However, in its documents, the World Wildlife Fund states that it absolutely wants the minister to have full powers, but nonetheless there is a sentence that says:

The Fund is not opposed to other options as long as they do not compromise the power in this Act to create marine conservation areas...

Basically, considering the Fund's point of view and the advisory committee's point of view, wouldn't the solution be found in the model developed for the Saint-Laurent—Saguenay Park? In this park, which is next to my riding, the province retains ownership of the seabed and there is a joint management committee where both sides can express their point of view. They do not have absolute powers, like the powers envisaged in this Act. Wouldn't this be a future path to explore for both groups and shouldn't the Act be amended in accordance with that?

[English]

Mr. Marc Kielley (NMCA Feasibility Study Advisory Committee): Maybe I could comment on that. The situation in Newfoundland is a lot more complicated. As Mr. Quinton tried to point out, you have a very well-established, long-established user group in Newfoundland. You have over 2,000 fishermen located within this area. We have 35 aquaculturists, with tremendous opportunities for expansion.

This is a unique situation, as I understand it, in terms of the history of these marine conservation areas. I don't believe there's another area in the world that has a marine conservation area created with this type of user group in place that has been proven to work in harmony with the philosophy and mandate of Parks Canada, and quite frankly, we're not very comfortable with it.

We did take a look at New Zealand because we understand there may be some similarities there. They have quite a few marine conservation areas established there. One of the things that really alarmed us there was that there was no fishing permitted in a number of, if not all of, their marine conservation areas. Fishing is deemed an offence, and you're not allowed to harvest from the seabed. When you see these types of things it makes you very nervous, needless to say.

• 1155

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: I would like the people from the Fund to react to the brief that was presented by the advisory committee. What is your reaction to this?

[English]

The Chairman: How do you react to the remarks made by the advisory committee in their brief?

Mr. Josh Laughren: I can completely appreciate the concern they have and the suspicion. Newfoundland has been hit very hard and I would be surprised if they weren't concerned, didn't have suspicions about it and weren't here at the table. I think that's healthy and appropriate.

Are there any examples out there where things have worked in harmony? I think the Great Barrier Reef in Australia is an example of where it has. The Great Barrier Reef exists over a couple of thousand kilometres of shoreline over many different jurisdictions, and allows for zoning much like what we're talking about today. It has areas that are less restrictive than what I'm proposing, but it also covers the entire coast of Australia. It covers every zone from no take and no entry—not even scientific entry—right up to where almost everything goes. So there are examples out there of where these things can co-exist properly.

New Zealand has an admirable record in marine protected areas. I believe their no-take areas were put in after much consultation. Nobody, including myself, is arguing that MCAs should be completely no take, or even the majority of them. I don't think that's the purpose, certainly not in my mind and not from anything I've seen on the parks.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, but my question was more specifically concerned with the model developed for the Saint-Laurent—Saguenay Park. Doesn't this seem more relevant to you? The advisory committee mentioned many communities that have lived there for decades. There may be no precedents for marine areas, but there are precedents for land areas, especially in Forillon Park, where the same situation had occurred in the past. A region was emptied of its population and people were resettled in an artificial way. The same kind of situation could develop if the Act is applied strictly as you wanted it to be applied.

[English]

Mr. Josh Laughren: I'm not sure if I caught the question properly, with the translation.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I'm asking you whether a strict application of the Act as you require, with absolute powers for the minister, would not result in situations such as those we have observed where whole populations had to be moved out of land areas. In the case in point, in Newfoundland, wouldn't we be in a situation where we would have to empty a whole region of its population because we have decided that human beings are not part of that particular ecosystem?

[English]

Mr. Josh Laughren: That's a fair question. I don't think there's any provision or intent in the bill to move people at all. There has been a lot of work done to recognize that the marine conservation areas are not a strict application of national terrestrial parks into the marine environment. There has been a lot of work done to recognize they are very different, that human uses can occur in and are compatible with conservation areas. So I don't think there's any plan or allowance in the bill for appropriation of lands or moving of people. I personally and WWF would oppose that, frankly. I don't see that as a possibility under the bill as it is, even now.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): There was reference to CPAs and MCAs from the perspective of why both are needed. Maybe I could ask the WWF to speak on both of those, because it seems there is a lot of trust in DFO's abilities, from the presentation we heard from the Newfoundland representatives.

The MCAs are more permanent, as Bill C-48 has designed them by intention. You don't seem to want a permanent conservation area at all in Newfoundland. I would like to know what difference you see between DFO's jurisdiction and Heritage's jurisdiction here, and then ask what your view is on the permanency of conservation in your region.

• 1200

Mr. Josh Laughren: Do you mean the differences in jurisdiction within a conservation area, or just between a Parks conservation area and a DFO-protected area? Are you asking for the differences between the two entities?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

Mr. Josh Laughren: Fisheries and Oceans has the mandate on the Oceans Act, the way it's written in there. It really manages key features for the protection of endangered species, the protection of key habitat for commercial species, and unique geological features. It's for very tangible and very recognizable features of the ocean environment.

The application of the mandate of Parks Canada is different, but the mandate is similar to the terrestrial one. We're setting aside large areas that are representative of our marine heritage, and these should be kept in a relatively unaltered state so future generations can see and experience those healthy, naturally functioning ecosystems.

DFO is really looking at managing generally smaller areas for key, single identifiable features. I see them as quite different, but both contributing to the larger mandate of oceans conservation.

Does that answer the question?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So DFO looks at smaller areas for the short term, to give either the habitat or the species time to replenish itself. Then DFO would back off from that protected area.

Mr. Josh Laughren: I would say no. DFO has a multitude of tools available for closures—seasonal closures and short-term closure—that fall under the Fisheries Act. The idea of protected areas under the Oceans Act is for long-term protected areas. I would argue it should be in perpetuity, although the act itself just states long-term protected areas, but for a different focus than that of Parks Canada.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Just to follow up on the question of the permanency of Bill C-48, is that striking at the problem or the major concern in Newfoundland?

Mr. Marc Kielley: It's part of the problem. We're not opposed to having a certain amount of permanency, but I don't think it should be locked in for perpetuity, as perhaps was suggested.

On the distinction between MPAs and MCAs, there's not a great deal of difference. There's a difference in permanency. MPAs have the potential to be more short term, but again that's very subjective, depending on what type of remedial action you're talking about and the length of time for that to occur. I think MPAs have the potential to be a little more locally initiated and managed, whereas I think an MCA is more of a nationally driven initiative.

We don't have a problem per se with a certain level of permanency with marine conservation areas, but the issue is that you have to find a place where this fits. What we're saying to you right now is that this has the potential to displace, destroy and upset people's livelihoods.

Can you imagine trying to create a marine conservation area in a section of Toronto? That's essentially what you're doing in Newfoundland. You're trying to lay this in on top of a section of Newfoundland where we have an intensive inshore fishery and aquaculture industry. This just doesn't make sense.

I have a little bit of experience or knowledge on Forillon, and when I heard about that it just confirmed all my fears. I understand people there have gone through quite a bit of upheaval. They have been displaced or were required to sell their properties and got a meagre amount of money for them. It has ruined lives. Is this worth it? Is this what we really want to achieve here with marine conservation areas?

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

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

As you said, it's rather interesting to see both sides of the issue today. I have particular concern and interest in the comments that were made by the people from Newfoundland. Last week we had representatives from Parks Canada, and one of the questions asked to them was whether Parks Canada or the agency would proceed unilaterally to establish an MCA. The answer was no.

• 1205

So I wonder, have the concerns you raised in your presentation here today relating to the Parks people been raised with your group in Bonavista?

Mr. Marlon Quinton: We're open minded. People are not against conservation, they want conservation. But the question that remains unanswered is at what cost?

At some point further back, in the initial stages, people probably got a bit of an impression of a cooperative venture between Parks, Fisheries, fishers, stakeholders, aquaculture.

Mr. Mark Muise: Maybe I didn't make my question clear enough.

I get the impression from your presentation that you're against establishing an MCA in the area that is being looked at. Have you made those comments known to the people from Parks Canada and said you don't want this? Based on what they told us last week—

Mr. Marlon Quinton: Personally, it's not for me to determine. I only listen to people's concerns, and then I come to a conclusion. As a representative sitting on that board, I have to make a decision on what I hear; it's part of the process.

Mr. Marc Kielley: It's part of the process. We've been tasked as an advisory committee to have a look at this thing and see if it makes sense. What we've uncovered is that it presents a whole range of problems.

Mr. Mark Muise: Right.

Mr. Marc Kielley: As it currently stands, we cannot support this establishment in the area that has been designated. Largely, our views have been the views that have been presented by the various representatives within the advisory committee and outside who have expressed their opinions at the various workshops we have had.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise's question was, are the officials in Parks Canada clearly aware of your position?

Mr. Marc Kielley: They certainly are now, and they should have been aware of it before. This is one of the issues—and you will recall that I was here last week. These issues have been brought up time and time again; they will not go away. The potential for conflict here is unending, and you can try to ignore it or you can try to face it. Maybe some of this can't be fixed. At least we're of the perception it can't be fixed, because we haven't seen any attempt to fix it.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, the question was based on my first question. It is this: Based on what we were told last week, if the group doesn't want this to take place, it is my understanding that it would not take place. If your reading of the public that is affected by this is saying that's not what you want to have happen, then it seems to me the process could be stopped. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I understood from Parks last week.

Mr. Marc Kielley: That's a fair comment. We've heard the same thing. I'm not disagreeing with what you said. But I think it's important that we have the opportunity to express our views. We're in a unique situation. I think this is the first time they've attempted to establish one of these conservation areas in an area of Newfoundland with the dynamics that we have within that area. I think it's beneficial for the members of the standing committee to understand our point of view, and I think it will certainly be useful to you in referencing this some time in the future.

Mr. Mark Muise: This is very useful for us, and I agree totally. I certainly wasn't trying to be confrontational, but I was just trying to understand what was told to us last week. If that is fact, then it seems to me, if you as a group determine that it's not feasible and you tell the officials, it could stop the process.

Mr. Marlon Quinton: I think what really is going to destroy the process for NMCAs across Canada would be Bill C-48. We sat at the table and we had some clear discussions, and everybody was in a position of give and take, but the minute Bill C-48 hit the table, I think we were about three or four months into the process and everything turned the other way. It's what I've been seeing at the consultation level.

• 1210

The Chairman: Mr. McWhinney.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): I'm going to put Mr. Muise's question in a rather different way. But I should say I was parliamentary secretary when the Oceans Act was introduced. Of course, while there are conservation powers implicit in that, they're certainly not of the same extent as you'll get when the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified.

The whole purpose of giving Parks Canada these powers is to recognize that problems of conservation involve more than one ministry and, efficiently, would require their cooperation and consultation. But it's certainly not intended to establish paramountcy in any one ministry. In fact, in a statement in the last session, the chairman made it very clear that implementation of powers involved affecting fisheries requires the concurrence in any regulations of the fisheries ministry.

So my question would be rather the same as Mr. Muise's, but directed to whether you have made your concerns known to the ministry with special competence for fisheries, the fisheries ministry. Have you said, look, these are impacting on us and we would like you to press the powers that you have?

In other words, you are not directed solely to Park Canada. Parks Canada is not the Lord High Executioner in relation to everything else. It has no more than coordination powers with the fisheries ministry and other ministries. It's an attempt to get cooperative federalism in an intergovernmental aspect, as well as with the other provinces.

So how would you react to that? Have you been speaking to Fisheries Canada, the ministry?

Mr. Marlon Quinton: Yes, at a workshop last week, we did have representatives from DFO there.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Yes.

Mr. Marlon Quinton: They sort of explained the concept of zones: what zones you could get; what you could have in zone I, zone II and zone III; which zones in an area would be zone I, which would be zone II, or which would be zone III. Could they all turn out to be zone I? Could it all turn out to be zone II? It raises many questions.

But in Bill C-48, I question the authority of the park superintendent.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: But they didn't give you the Dante's Inferno abandonment of hope.

Mr. Marlon Quinton: No.

As it goes for me, as a professional fish harvester, I would have to apply to DFO for a permit. I would apply to area office, which now issues that out of St. John's back to area office. So the way I understand this process now, under Bill C-48 I would have to apply to area office; they would have to apply to a larger office in St. John's, which is generally the way we've been doing it in the past. But DFO could approve it, and on the other hand, it would go to the park superintendent to see if he was going to issue me a permit.

Secondly, as I read the legislation, the superintendent has the authority to notify me of how many permits he will issue. So if we have 500 licence holders in a particular given area, is the superintendent going to say to me or to a stakeholder that they'll grant 10 licences for a week, and then re-grant 10 more licences? The process is very, very unclear.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: It is more complex than it perhaps should be with good administrative law drafting. Nevertheless, coming back to the statement Kevin made last week, since the fisheries minister must concur in regulations affecting fisheries, I wonder what's to prevent your going to your MP and saying, “Look, this is a fisheries matter and we don't think the fisheries aspect of the cooperative planning and ministerial planning is working effectively.” Why don't you go to your MP, whoever he or she is?

Mr. Marc Kielley: Have you tried doing that?

Mr. Ted McWhinney: Yes. I tried before I was in Parliament, and it worked. You're very articulate, Mr. Kielley. What's the problem?

Mr. Marc Kielley: That's reality. The problem is that we deal with Ottawa a lot in our business, and it's extremely frustrating.

Mr. Ted McWhinney: I know it's frustrating, but it can be overcome.

Mr. Marc Kielley: It's very difficult to get issues resolved in very short timeframes.

• 1215

Mr. Ted McWhinney: There is a balance between the ministries, though, and there is no paramountcy given to Heritage Canada. I think this is a very important thing to understand.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick, Mr. Godfrey, and Monsieur Bélanger.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): I'm going to direct my questioning to the WWF. Having read your brief, inclusive of areas you support as well as areas in which you have concerns or are making further recommendations, my question stems from some of your recommendations on your perceived notion of strengthening the bill. It falls in line with who is the paramount agency, or the controlling agency or minister.

First of all, from an opinion standpoint, do you see the committee having a responsibility to ensure that there's consideration provided in the legislation taking into regard economic and cultural impacts of any particular piece of given legislation?

Mr. Josh Laughren: Yes.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: If you're agreeing there should be consideration given to both economic and cultural impacts in any given piece of legislation, as I read through your brief—I apologize for missing the statement you gave, but perhaps it's somewhat similar—I don't find any reference made to consideration of economic and cultural issues. In fact, you're strengthening the environmental aspect in recommendations to the point where Heritage would be the lead ministry. Consensus is not required with DFO. If the final decision is to come down, it would come down under the Minister of Heritage and not DFO and thereby, as I read from your presentation, it mitigates any issues. They may not have an opportunity to address it through DFO, if we were to follow your recommendation, because DFO would not have the final decision, but rather Heritage Canada would have it.

So you're telling me on one hand that, yes, we should take into consideration key economic and cultural impacts of legislation, yet I don't see it anywhere in your recommendations. Perhaps I'm missing it and you can enlighten me.

Mr. Josh Laughren: Sure. For one, I didn't spend a lot of time on the economic considerations, which I knew my friends here would be focusing on. I should clarify: I don't want the Minister of Canadian Heritage to have sole decision-making power within NMCA. I agree—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Who should have the final role?

Mr. Josh Laughren: I think it should be a joint role. Right now the minister can only make a decision if the DFO minister agrees. That leaves the veto and the authority with DFO. I'd like to see it so that there needs to be joint agreement before things occur or don't occur, and if that needs to be done before the management plan is implemented, then let's do that. If there needs to be a dispute resolution mechanism to make sure that happens, let's do that. I'd like it to be joint decision making. Right now DFO has the entire decision-making in terms of activities that can occur or restrictions that can occur, and I'd like to see that move more to joint decision-making rather than giving the primacy to the DFO minister.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Are you suggesting right now, not post-enactment of Bill C-48?

Mr. Josh Laughren: Yes, I'm suggesting that should be cleared.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: But post-enactment, if it were to be adopted the way it stands right now, certainly the lead ministry on this would be DFO, as it stands right now with the—

Mr. Josh Laughren: With the fishing aspects, yes, certainly.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: You're suggesting, obviously, that it not be the lead ministry, but that there be a parallel ministry with equal decision-making authority.

Mr. Josh Laughren: Yes. Now, I should be clear. I think the administration, the handling of fisheries should be done under DFO. They have the capacity, the history, and they should do that. But the decision-making levels that occur should need agreement by both ministers.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: My final question is in regard again to the economic and cultural aspect of implications of legislation in your agreement, and the fact that we should have considerations for that in the bill. But you assume these gentlemen or other people who are averse to the legislation or proposed legislation would present that. But I do envision it as a responsibility, when somebody is bringing forth a statement or a brief asking us to consider recommendations or expanding authorities, that they too take into consideration those very things that you agree with, and I don't see that in your presentation.

Mr. Josh Laughren: Yes, I didn't mean to be too glib with my response there. But I mean that quite sincerely. I think those aspects are covered under the extreme consultation and decision-making that I see taking place in local communities. I would be against the designation of Bonavista as an MCA today. I don't feel the consultation has gone far enough. There isn't buy-in in the areas, and that needs to happen.

• 1220

I think that's where the economic implications come in—the local advisory committees and the local buy-in that's needed. That's where those interests come into play. I very much mean that the people, the people of Newfoundland in the area of Bonavista, will make the decision on whether or not to proceed with it. They'll be part and parcel of drafting the management plan, and that's where the economic considerations will come into play.

I'm not commenting on it, especially with something like Bonavista, because I'm not close enough to the area to be able to suggest where things should occur and where they can't occur, specifically. That economic consideration comes into play through the advisory committees and through the consultation that is outlined right now in the bill.

The Chairman: Okay, thanks. I should make it clear, just so there's no misunderstanding, that the minister under the bill is the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I have two opening observations. The first is that I think there is sometimes almost a structural flaw in the way we organize our affairs, because it would clearly be very intriguing to have at the table, simultaneously with our guests, folks from Parks Canada who could give us an on-the-spot answer to some of these concerns that have been raised. Instead, we're really forced to store up these concerns and questions. I'm hoping that both the people from Parks Canada, who I know are listening in the audience, and the researcher will carefully note both sets of observations and be able to respond to us quite specifically on the things that are raised.

The second observation I make is that this is not a bill about any part of Newfoundland. This is a bill for marine conservation areas right across the country. So if there is a specific problem about the establishment of a specific marine conservation area, the way we should think about that as a committee is not to stop the whole process dead, but to see, first of all, whether the process can accommodate, as is outlined in the legislation or as could be improved in the legislation, the kinds of concerns that Mr. Quinton has brought to us. We had, I think Mr. Crête pointed out, a successful experience in Quebec with the very first of these, which suggests it is possible to bring lots of stakeholders in.

One of the tests of the bill is that if at the end of the day the community doesn't like what's going on...and I think I heard the community acknowledge they thought they could stop the process even under this legislation. Maybe that's a strength of the legislation. So one of the things we have to test is the specifics of the objections against the generalities of the bill. That's something for us to worry about.

I guess the one thing I would test with Mr. Laughren and indeed Mr. Quinton.... If I were to lock you fellows up in a room and say you couldn't come out until you came up with a proper bill for us here, which I don't think we're going to do, so you can relax....

Mr. Marlon Quinton: I would come out first.

Mr. John Godfrey: You're bigger, I noticed.

I guess what I would be trying to find is common ground. I heard Mr. Laughren say, we wouldn't want to force you guys to have a marine conservation area before you could be fully satisfied this would not do all the bad things that you fear.

As you hear each other, what do you think, other than a general agreement about the virtues of conservation, is the common ground? Maybe I'll go to Mr. Laughren on that.

Mr. Josh Laughren: Well, we've already heard the one broad level of common ground on which I would not even attempt to preach to the group beside me here, which is the economic costs that can be incurred from the mismanagement of resources. The people of Newfoundland have felt it a lot more than I have, growing up in northern Ontario. That's common ground.

The common ground is that the methods we were using before weren't as effective as we thought they would be, and that things are changing and need to change. I have to believe them when they say they understand the importance of conservation. The onus is on the process to show that it can happen, that it can take into account their concerns.

• 1225

But I should say that, fundamentally, a conservation area or protected area implies a scaling back of human activities, and a prohibition in some cases. That's the definition of a protected area.

We shouldn't be surprised when industry has suspicions and concerns right off the bat. Any time you talk about a protected area—or a conservation area, to use the proper term here—in a given area, the industry within that area, as a starting point, is going to be against it. Their initial point is a not-in-my-backyard one. They don't have anything to gain by this happening in their area in terms of their own businesses, and much to lose.

Parts of the areas of agreement that we have to find, then, is a larger agreement to the facts that, first, yes, these types of conservation areas are necessary; second, this is what they're going to look like; and third, we have to sit down to see if we can work out together where they should be and how they should be structured. First, you really have to work from the top level and agree that they're needed. Second, you have to decide what's needed. And third, you have to work on where they go.

The Chairman: There's a brief question from Mr. Godfrey, but before we hear from him, we have half an hour left and I have a long list of questioners. I would ask that both sides, the members and the witnesses, be more concise so that we can all have a chance.

Mr. Godfrey, your last question, please.

Mr. John Godfrey: My last question concerns whether there is potential common ground or not. It has to do with science. I heard Mr. Quinton say that folks in Newfoundland have come a long way in their understanding of ecosystems in the last ten years. Mr. Laughren, in his document, outlined some of the very specific concerns he has about various practices. For example, he talked about finfish aquaculture.

I'm asking this of the folks from Newfoundland. Between the two groups, is there common ground on the science? In other words, when you read Mr. Laughren's definition of some of the challenges and difficulties of finfish aquaculture, do you agree that it's true and has to be dealt with?

Mr. Marc Kielley: Since I wear the aquaculture hat, I'll address that.

There's no common ground on that as far as we see it. We feel we should be entitled to conduct finfish aquaculture. Some of the issues that Mr. Laughren raised sound very nice and sound plausible, but they can't be substantiated with good science. This is obviously not the forum in which to debate the pros and cons of finfish farming, but his comments just go to substantiate the concern that I had with the language in Parks Canada's guidelines and operating policies. They put aquaculture on the bottom of the priority pile, below fisheries, below navigation, below marine outdoor activity and public education activities. It's pretty difficult to find common ground when you're starting off with a mindset like that, one that has preconceived notions about the appropriateness of aquaculture.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

First of all, I want to thank you and the clerk for acting so quickly on the committee's wishes last week that we hear from these good people. I think it was only Thursday that you were here suggesting that the members of the advisory committee be invited, so that was pretty fast. Congratulations.

I'd like to refer back to your brief, if I may, sir. On the first page, you state that the board you represent here is made up of

19 members: 11 professional fish harvesters and representatives from aquaculture, fish processors, economic development boards.... The board was appointed by Secretary of State, Andy Mitchell and the Hon. Sandra Kelly, Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The advisory committee

—that's your group—

has been charged with the task of examining the feasibility of establishing a National Marine Conservation Area with a section of Newfoundland coastline which spans from Cape Bonavista, Bonavista Bay to North Head, Notre Dame Bay. The overall role of the advisory committee is to determine if the proposed NMCA is indeed compatible with traditional and existing marine uses and, if there is sufficient stakeholder support for such an initiative.

Are we to conclude that you have concluded your work?

Mr. Marlon Quinton: Well, I guess it could depend on Bill C-48.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, no. Have you done your work? Have you reported?

• 1230

Mr. Marlon Quinton: No, we haven't reported as of yet.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Should we consider this as your report, your testimony here today?

Mr. Marlon Quinton: I think you would get a sense of what the board has accomplished up to the present day.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I understand that. Have you finished your consultations?

Mr. Marlon Quinton: To my knowledge, the board has not finished yet. It has a final report to do.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But your consultations, are those pretty well concluded?

Mr. Marlon Quinton: The workshops and consultation process have concluded. The next step would be trying to find a way to see if there is any greater public support. If you can't find a way, then—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The reason I want to bring this up, Mr. Quinton, is that I will contend that the system works, that if after consultations this advisory committee, which has been struck by a minister of the Canadian government and the minister of the provincial government in this case, recommends that there should not be a marine conservation area in this particular area, then my suspicion is there won't be, and we'll look elsewhere, because it's a fairly wide coastline. My understanding is that we're looking at zone III, which is la plateforme de Terre-Neuve, the Newfoundland Shelf, if you will. That's a pretty big coastline, so we can look elsewhere.

What I'm trying to get at here is, are you indirectly reporting to those who appointed you that you don't want a marine conservation area in that area? That's what I'm hearing. It has to be clear because—

Mr. Marlon Quinton: We had some problems with Bill C-48. Bill C-48 came into the process when we were doing our work, and we made it known to the Secretary of State that we could see it causing some problems in the area in question, which we were studying.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Excuse me, I understand that. I read and I listened, and yes, you have made suggestions. You have concerns, and you don't think it should be there.

Nonetheless, there's a will within the Government of Canada, which is shared by some of the opposition parties, to indeed create these marine conservation areas. You have said that generally speaking, to use a phrase, you're not opposed to these marine conservation areas. The question I'm asking is, whether it's done under Bill C-48 or another department's authority, have you...? Are you the chair of this group?

Mr. Marlon Quinton: No.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Who is the chair?

Mr. Marlon Quinton: The chair used to be Mr. Melindy.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are you authorized to speak on behalf of the group?

Mr. Marlon Quinton: Yes, I've been sent by the board.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: As the person authorized to speak on behalf of the group, have you concluded that no matter which authority it's under, whether it be Bill C-48, DFO, or any other authority, you don't want a marine conservation area there? Is that the conclusion you've reached, and can we officially communicate that to the two ministers who appointed your group?

Mr. Marlon Quinton: That's what we're here about, and that's what we're saying.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So the community does not want the marine conservation area there. Is that correct?

Mr. Marlon Quinton: It's a widespread issue, and after putting it before the community, it's a no.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: They don't want it.

Mr. Marlon Quinton: No. They've gone through Bill C-48, and they've turned around and suggested they don't want it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I understand that.

I'm going to try one last time, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

Suppose we scrap Bill C-48, that we listen to you and say you're right, we'll scrap it. Let's just suppose that for a minute. There's still going to be in this country at some point 29 marine conservation areas in these areas that have been determined, and there's going to be one somewhere on the coast of Newfoundland. The question to you is, are we to take it that following your consultations, the community there has determined that under any circumstances, under any authority, whether it be DFO, Environment Canada, or whatever, they do not want a marine conservation area in their backyard? Is that the conclusion?

Mr. Marlon Quinton: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

• 1235

Mr. Inky Mark: I have just one question, Mr. Chairman. Again, this is reflective of what's currently happening.

You're involved in the consultation process. It's ironic that the bill talks about consultation with the community, and yet we're having these problems at this time in the consultation process. So how can we maybe change the process?

Mr. Marc Kielley: The legislation came after the consultation group was set up and the area was designated, so it came in after the fact, and it complicated the issue a great deal. That's what happened. People had a lot of concerns previously, but the only real documents we had were some of the discussion papers that had been developed by Parks Canada. As well, we did some research on their guidelines and operating policies. This was the main body of information we had to evaluate whether this was good or not so good. Once the legislation came down, it basically threw any potential support we had for it out the door.

Mr. Inky Mark: Did the agencies listen to your advice through this consultation process?

Mr. Marc Kielley: In fairness to them, yes, they listened to it. Maybe this will be surprising for me to say, but what can they do about it? The legislation has been written, and now it has to go through due process here. So they have to do their job as bureaucrats and try to present the department line as best they can and report back on what some of the issues are. Certainly at the local level most of the people are not empowered to make major decisions on these types of things.

But I think a lot is to be learned from the experience in Newfoundland, because if you're going to try to sell this in other parts of Canada, you have to get community buy-in, particularly if you're going to try to place this in an area where you're going to be impacting on people's livelihoods. I think maybe—

The Chairman: Surely this is the whole idea of the exercise. This is why you're in place. If there's an advisory committee to seek public input, isn't that what you want? Isn't that what you've been given?

Mr. Marc Kielley: Sure, and that's why we're here, to have another opportunity to voice it to you people—

The Chairman: Yes, exactly.

Mr. Marc Kielley: —because you are the decision-makers.

The Chairman: So everybody should be—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Pleased that the process is working.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: I'd like to make a brief comment. Mr. Chair, the only problem is that if we're running into these snags now when the legislation is not in effect, imagine what would happen if the legislation were in effect. Where do these communities go? They can't come to this committee.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: This is the process.

Mr. Inky Mark: I know, but we're saying that if—

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Dumas.

Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Good day, gentlemen. I really liked the arguments put forward by Mr. Quinton. I'd first like to make a comment on his brief: you could find no better way to tear a bill apart.

I really agree with the comment you made regarding the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, whose authority will be undermined by this bill. We already have Parks Canada, Fisheries and Oceans and Heritage Canada. A French saying says that too many cooks spoil the broth. This might happen with this bill.

My question is for Mr. Laughren. On page 3 of your brief, point 5, you mention that Canada insists on owning an absolute title on the land concerned. I would like you to tell us about your relations with Quebec. What will be your position regarding Quebec's demands in this matter?

[English]

Mr. Josh Laughren: My comment on that is that I am not a constitutional expert, I don't pretend to be, and I really can't comment on which claim is valid and which isn't and who has jurisdiction.

I'm retreating to my area of expertise here, and my concern is that there be clear accountability with one jurisdiction for the management of an area, and the only way I can see to do that is with clear title being held with Parks Canada. If there's another way of doing it to ensure long-term protection, then I'm willing to consider it, but I haven't seen it.

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Dumas: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll go next to Mr. Jordan and then to Mr. Muise. Then we'll close the questioning.

• 1240

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I just have a couple of questions for Mr. Quinton.

You say—and what I'm hearing is that we are now having a hypothetical discussion—that inside the area that was identified there were 2,000 fishing licence holders and 35 aquaculture licence holders. Can you give me some indication, just a ballpark figure, of what percentage of the economic benefits is being derived from the traditional licensed fishers and what percentage of the economic money flowing in is coming from the aquaculture operation? Is it 50-50?

Mr. Marlon Quinton: Well, Mark can give you rough figures for aquaculture.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

Mr. Marc Kielley: Well, in aquaculture, for the 35 firms their primary species are cod, mussels, and potentially scallops. The area also includes the areas, if you include the buffer areas, that make up about 90% or 95% of Newfoundland's mussel production. In terms of dollar value right now, you'd probably be looking at about $5 million. Again, it's a very young developing industry. It has the potential to grow significantly.

Mr. Joe Jordan: It has potential for growth. Okay, because I don't want to wade into—pardon the pun—the ecological footprint of aquaculture.

Mr. John Godfrey: You'd be in over your head.

Mr. Joe Jordan: But I do just want to point out that when you talk about primacy for DFO—too many cooks, as my colleague says—DFO also administers the federal aquaculture development strategy. It has an economic development mandate. So when you say making Heritage in charge puts it at the bottom of the pile, I would argue that making DFO in charge puts it at the top of the pile. It's fine to have too many cooks, but here you've got somebody who's not only cooking but eating.

Do you see any problem—and this is a problem that's going to happen anyway independent of this—with that sort of schizophrenic mandate of DFO, where they're trying to economically pursue this industry and they're also charged with regulating its ecological impacts? Is that something you think we might have to deal with down the road?

Mr. Marc Kielley: I'm not sure where to start on that one. Yes, it is a bit of a schizophrenic organization, it's fairly safe to say. That term has been widely used.

From an industry perspective, we're not really asking them to assist us with developing the industry. The expression is, just get out of our way. We realize you have to have a certain level of regulation. Let's make sure the regulations are sensible and backed by good science, if that's the issue, and good logic.

For the most part, DFO has not had the resources to deliver on the federal aquaculture strategy. You're probably aware of that.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes.

Mr. Marc Kielley: That has been recognized. One of the things that have been missing from the overall strategy is an advocate for the industry, and now they've recently appointed a commissioner for aquaculture. As well, they're currently working on a development fund to assist with development of the industry, for want of a better word, but it's not going to be assisting financing firms per se, it's going to assist in other areas.

I don't know if that helps to answer your question.

Mr. Joe Jordan: No, I think it's just something we have to approach in a very responsible way.

Mr. Marc Kielley: Yes, sure.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'm not taking sides on it, but I just think the growth of the industry and the potential growth of the industry would suggest that perhaps we need to take another look at that kind of breakdown.

Mr. Marc Kielley: That mandate, yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, last question.

Mr. Mark Muise: One of my concerns is communities that would be negatively impacted by an MCA. If there's fishing that can't proceed, or if there's any restriction that would have a negative impact economically on a community, that really concerns me.

I'm kind of glad you are in the process of this exercise while we're studying this piece of legislation. Where I was trying to go with my questions earlier is that—I'm coming back to what I said earlier—if one of the parties does not want this to take place and if this happens to be your final report and it says no, we don't want an MCA in Bonavista Bay, in that area described there, and the process stops and they study another area, I see it as alleviating some of my concerns, some of the concerns you would probably have.

I'd like you to comment on that if you would.

Mr. Marlon Quinton: Looking at it from a Newfoundland perspective, I don't think it would change. If you take this from Bonavista and Notre Dame Bay and move it around to Fortune Bay and St. Mary's Bay on the southern tip, I think we would still be confronted with the same issues. I think if we take it from the northeast coast of Newfoundland and move it to the west coast of Newfoundland, we would still have the same issues. If we take it to the north shore of Quebec, I think we would have the same issues. It wouldn't be any different.

• 1245

Mr. Mark Muise: But if the committees that study this come to the same conclusion you have and it is determined in those areas that it shouldn't go ahead and it doesn't.... Mr. Kielley, maybe you could comment.

Mr. Marc Kielley: Maybe I could comment.

I think one of the things that are missing from the process is a screening. I think we have to do a proper screening of the coastline first to look at whether...you could maybe do a coastal inventory to find out what user groups you have within that area. First of all, do you see the potential for conflict in light of what you want to achieve in this legislation and policies?

If when you do this kind of scan you see the potential there, that you have a strong fisheries or aquaculture component there, or whatever other sector could possibly be present, and you look at that in view of what you want to achieve with the legislation, then that should be able to tell you fairly quickly whether this should be a go or a no go, or whether we should proceed with some level of consultation.

Mr. Mark Muise: Right.

Mr. Marc Kielley: If that had been done at the outset in Newfoundland we probably wouldn't be here today. But that's easy for us to say, looking at it from where we are today.

Mr. Mark Muise: I'm personally glad you are here, because what we're discussing here is very relevant to determining if this piece of legislation is on the right track or not. And if we can determine that this works and that the process does work and protects the concerns you have, I think it's good.

Mr. Marc Kielley: Yes, sure it is.

The other thing is that I know the government has made a commitment for 29 of these. I don't know how that figure came about, but I think you should be less concerned about the numbers game and be more concerned with developing some quality conservation areas that are not going to create the conflict and displacement that we suggest could happen in Newfoundland. Let's not be hung up on having 29 of these by a certain point in time.

The Chairman: Just before we proceed any further, I want to point out, as I did the other day, that I think in many areas of our discussions today there's a misunderstanding about many parts of the bill, which I wanted to underline.

First of all, you suggested that Bill C-48 came in the midst of the consultation and that impeded the stuff. But if Bill C-48 gets passed, the minister cannot choose whether or not to have a consultation; there's no argument, she has to. It says under subclause 10(1) that the minister:

shall provide opportunities for consultation with any federal and provincial ministers and agencies, affected coastal communities and aboriginal organizations and other parties

So the minister doesn't have any choice.

Number two, once she's decided to establish an MCA, she has to go before every committee, not only in the House of Commons but also the Senate, that deals with this issue, which includes the committee on fisheries and oceans.

Then, under subclause 7(2):

The committee of each House

—which is the Committee of the House of Commons and the Committee of the Senate—

may, within 20 sitting days after the amendment is tabled

—that is the establishment of an area or the changing of an area—

report to the House that it disapproves the amendment.

If it disapproves, it has to report it to the House.

When a conservation area is subject to a management plan, according to subclause 9(1) the management plan itself has to go through consultation before all the affected communities. Provisions for a management plan respecting fishing, aquaculture, fisheries management and marine navigation have to be subject to agreement, not only by the Minister of Canadian Heritage but also the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

When regulations are published under 16(2):

Regulations under this section respecting fisheries management and conservation or that restrict or prohibit fishing or aquaculture, marine navigation or activities related to marine safety may be made only on the recommendation of the Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

• 1250

I would point out to you, Mr. Quinton, because you're worried about subclause 16(7), that if you look at subclause 16(7) it says:

Regulations made under this section

—that is section 16—

may authorize the superintendent of a marine conservation area, in the circumstances described and to the extent provided in the regulations, to vary any...

So if the Minister of Fisheries doesn't want to give these powers to the superintendent, he doesn't recommend them, so their recommendation doesn't take place in any event. If you say that giving the power to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans solves your problem and makes you feel more comfortable.... He has a veto right in the regulations, so if he doesn't want the superintendent to have any powers at all, he doesn't give it to him.

So there are two committees of the House, and each committee relating to a particular case. There are management plans. There are consultations that are compulsory, and then there are regulations where the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a veto right. I thought I would make this clear, because I think we've been talking as if there are no safeguards and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans doesn't exist. The fact is that consultations are compulsory. You can't avoid them, and if it doesn't work and you say you don't want it, it would be a foolish minister who would just impose them. I just thought I would mention this.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There was a response to a question that I wonder about. That was that having understood, although the report to the minister has not been made yet, that your conclusion will be that there not be a marine conservation area where you're looking at, to then say that it would be a similar conclusion reached anywhere else on the coastline...I have difficulty with this. One of the arguments we heard, for instance, is that 95% of aquaculture is in this particular area and surely that can't be duplicated elsewhere.

I think there's no one in this room who would support the establishment of a marine conservation area without having gone to the people there and getting their views. If they were opposed, I would hope we would back off completely. But I was wondering why the Government of Newfoundland in that case was supportive as well. We don't have an answer to that. But then we should let the people who would be interested in a marine conservation area elsewhere along the coastline decide for themselves and not prejudge what they might say.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, I think we have—

Mr. Mark Muise: It's not a question. It's for the chair and this committee once we're done.

The Chairman: I know. I think we should finish this now. We have a short business meeting.

Thank you very much for appearing today. We really appreciate your appearance here. It shows that there are two sides to any question. I think it has been very important for us to hear the two sides of the question. Thank you very much for appearing.

If the members could stay, we have a business meeting where we have to conduct some routine motions regarding our travel plans.

Mr. Mark Muise: Prior to that—I don't know if this is in order or not, but for next meeting or meetings after that, if I have to give notice of motion I will—I'm wondering if you would be prepared to entertain a motion that we have someone from Parks here next time or from Heritage, so we can answer some of these concerns that sometimes we—

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, there are several people from Parks here all the time, but we want them—

Mr. Mark Muise: At the table.

The Chairman: If you want people at the table, I'm sure all of the members will have no objection to that and we'll make sure this happens. We don't have to have a motion. We can just ask them to be there.

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

The Chairman: We have certain motions there that we have to adopt regarding our cultural study.

First of all, for the drafting of the study, it lasted longer than we expected. It's always the case with these things. We'd approved certain amounts and.... It's based on the number of days that the various people have been working on the draft. It's a considerable document.

• 1255

So the motion would read that, subject to funds being available, the contracts of Wanda Noel, Kevin Burns and David Black be amended as follows: for Wanda Noel, the amount to be increased to $26,900 from $15,000; for Mr. Kevin Burns, the amount to be increased to $15,000 from $10,000; and for Mr. David Black, the amount to be increased to $17,500 from $12,500; and that the chair seek the necessary funding from the budget subcommittee of the liaison committee.

Do you approve of my presenting these new figures?

The Clerk of the Committee: Just for the record, Mr. Chair, we should add “and that the days of the consultants be adjusted accordingly”. They are paid a per diem, so that would have to be reflected.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Motion two is necessary because excursion flights are no longer available for the days we wanted them, so we will have to travel on direct flights in some cases.

The motion reads that the chair seeks additional funds of $10,000 for the travel of subcommittees the week of February 21, 1999.

Mr. Mark Muise: The only question I have, Mr. Chairman, is that I believe we are travelling on our points.

The Chairman: This is for staff.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The next motion is that pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), the committee divide itself into two subcommittees for the purpose of conducting hearings the week of February 21, 1999—we've already agreed, this is just a case of putting it on the record—that the subcommittees be each composed of five members, three from the opposition parties and two from the government party; that the chair of the standing committee designate the chairs of the subcommittees; and that the subcommittees be granted all the powers of the standing committee, with the exception of the power to report to the House.

It's just a standard motion.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, if we don't have the number of members and we approve this, what is the consequence of that?

The Chairman: I think in some areas we are not going to have the number of members. We haven't put any minimum number in the motion; we'll just have to reduce the quorum to maybe two people.

It's a good point, Mr. Bélanger. Maybe we could add in there that a reduced—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, I was wanting to go the other way—not further reducing but increasing. In St. John's, Mr. Chairman, there are three members only, and the government is not represented. In Halifax there are three members only, and the government is not represented. In Moncton there are two members, and the government is not represented. I have a problem with that, sir, with all due respect.

The Chairman: The whip is working on it. There are several committees travelling at the same time. Because it's a break and because of the voting pattern in the House, all these various committees are travelling at the same time. In the case of Mr. Bonwick, for instance, he could have gone to three different functions at the same time. The whip assigned him to go to the agriculture committee, so we have a problem. So if we increase it and don't find the numbers—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm not talking about increasing it; I'm just talking about at least reaching what we set.

The Chairman: I know. That's why I suggested maybe we have a quorum of two.

Mr. Mark Muise: I look at our caucus of 19 and then I look across the way and see around 155. I find it very difficult to believe the whip could not whip into motion four or five people to attend those meetings.

The Chairman: The clerk and I have been in touch with the whip on a constant basis to find people. That's not my function.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Can you not take somebody off finance to attend the one-day heritage meeting in Moncton? As for the reserves we have for heritage, we have the responsibility, unlike some of the opposition parties, to ensure a majority attendance at all travelling committees, hence we have conflicts in schedules. That is the sole responsibility of government—

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Bélanger, I can assure you nothing extraordinary will happen. We need to listen to the people who come before the committee, and I certainly will do my utmost to make sure that happens.

The Chairman: It's for you to either adopt the motion as it is or include a reduced quorum. If you want a reduced quorum it's up to you; if that's what the members want to do, we'll just do it.

• 1300

There is a quorum there now. Maybe we should just leave it like it is.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: We should reduce it. If we show up and there are only two and we need a quorum, we won't have the meeting and everybody will leave.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The rule for hearing witnesses is three. Isn't that correct?

The Clerk: For the full committee.

The Chairman: Yes, as a subcommittee we're able to set our own rules.

The motion is before you.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.