CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 17, 1999

• 1541

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.)): I'll call to order the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and I will ask our delegations to please be seated.

The delegations are from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec, and the Canadian Nature Federation.

At this time I would ask our witnesses if they could introduce themselves and who they represent, and then we can hear the presentations.

Ms. Shelley Bryant (Consultant, Canadian Nature Federation): Hello. My name is Shelley Bryant. I'm here with Kevin McNamee of the Canadian Nature Federation, and I helped prepare the brief that we're submitting today.

Mr. Kevin McNamee (Director, Wildlands Campaign, Canadian Nature Federation): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, my name is Kevin McNamee. I'm the wildlands campaign director, with the Canadian Nature Federation here in Ottawa.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you.

Ms. Mary Granskou (Executive Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Mary Granskou. I'm with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

Here also is Sabine Jessen, the executive director of our British Columbia chapter.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you.

Mr. Bruce Amos (Director General, National Parks, Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Chairman, my name is Bruce Amos. I'm the director general of national parks with Parks Canada, and we're sitting at the table today at the request of the committee, following your last meeting.

I'm here with my colleague Susan Katz. Susan is with Parks Canada, the director of legislation and policy in the national parks branch.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you.

I will ask at this time that the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society deliver their presentation.

Ms. Mary Granskou: To clarify, I understand that we have 15 minutes. Is that correct?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): That's correct.

Ms. Mary Granskou: Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here. As I said earlier, we are with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society is one of Canada's oldest conservation organizations. We have over 35 years' experience on parks management, national, provincial and territorial parks management and establishment issues.

We are very well respected for our work across the country. We work cooperatively with governments, first nations, communities, industry, environmental organizations, and others in establishing and ensuring that protected areas are managed effectively, from our perspective, across the country.

Since our founding in 1963, we have helped protect over 350,000 square kilometres of Canada's wilderness heritage, and we are dedicated to that goal. We have ten chapters across the country, and our executive director for our British Columbia chapter is here today.

• 1545

Sabine Jessen is our resident expert on marine ecosystem protection, operating out of our office in Vancouver. I'll pass it over to Sabine to introduce our summary comments on the bill for your consideration.

Ms. Sabine Jessen (Executive Director, British Columbia Chapter, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society): Thank you very much. Hello, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

The focus of the work on marine issues of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society is mainly on the Pacific coast in British Columbia. One of our goals is to ensure that we have a representative system of marine protected areas by the year 2010. Two of the areas we are working on are in the southern Gulf Islands and in Gwaii Haanas in the Queen Charlotte Islands in B.C., both of which are sites that we hope to see eventually designated with the marine conservation areas legislation.

We are very pleased to see that Parks Canada is moving forward on its long-standing commitment to establish marine conservation areas in Canada. Parks Canada has been working for more than a decade and has taken a lead role in developing the policy and the scientific underpinnings for the establishment of representative marine conservation areas, and a number of sites are being advanced through local consultative processes.

We see that Bill C-48 will provide a very essential legislative base for establishing representative marine conservation areas in the marine environment that will provide not only for conservation but also for the enjoyment, education and use of the people of Canada, and by achieving those two goals, it will also ensure that coastal communities will benefit from having a healthy marine environment.

We see that the program being advanced through the marine conservation areas legislation is necessary and compatible with the programs under the Oceans Act for marine protected areas and, as well, under the Canada Wildlife Act for national wildlife areas and marine wildlife areas. They, in combination, are all necessary to provide for marine protected areas across Canada.

I'd like to go over some of our summary comments on this bill and then lead you through some of our key concerns.

In general, as you have probably guessed already, we are very supportive of the proposed Marine Conservation Areas Act, although we do think a number of amendments are necessary to strengthen the conservation concerns that we have. We also appreciate that we've been consulted a number of times by Parks Canada about the legislation and have appreciated the materials and background that we've been able to get from them on this.

As to some of the things we are very happy to see in this legislation, first of all, there is a very strong conservation focus. In particular, what is important to us is that it is time to start thinking about managing the marine environment and marine resources by taking an ecosystem perspective, and that is a very strong component of this legislation.

I think one of the reasons we're in the situation we are in terms of where marine resources or fisheries resources are at—on two of our coasts, anyway—is that we haven't looked at it from that kind of ecosystem perspective, and also taking a precautionary approach. So that is a very strong component of this legislation.

We're also very impressed by the emphasis on consultation mechanisms with the variety of interests at every stage of the identification, assessment and establishment process.

We also like the commitment to representation of the full range of marine habitats in Canada's marine regions.

The next point is also a very important one for long-term protection, which is one of the things we need to see more of in the marine environment, and that is, ensuring that sites can be added to the schedules of the act by Order in Council, but that any taking away, reducing of these areas, would be done by an act of Parliament. We think that is a very critical component of this legislation.

Finally, we're impressed by the emphasis on coordination with other government agencies, including other federal departments that have related jurisdictions, and the mechanisms that have been suggested for ensuring that happens. However, despite some of those very strong components of the legislation, we have some suggestions, some recommendations for amendments that we think are necessary.

• 1550

First and foremost is on the list of prohibitions. If we are going to truly protect these areas, if they are truly going to meet their conservation objectives, a number of activities need to be added to the list of prohibitions, and I'll go through those as I go through our amendments.

In addition, we think there needs to be improved recognition of first nations and aboriginal rights. We're concerned that there's a lack of interim protection measures during the five-year management planning process and we think this is something that needs to be added.

Finally, we'd like to see inclusion of the term “ecological integrity” as it is used in the National Parks Act. We believe it is also quite appropriate to be put into this legislation.

Our first recommendation is about strengthening the prohibitions. We're very supportive of the marine conservation area concept that's in this current bill, and in particular we like the idea that it can provide for multi-zone protected areas that will allow for a variety of human use, including fishing. But there are certain types of activities, which are known to cause large-scale, long-term habitat disruption, that we think are incompatible with meeting marine conservation objectives.

The list we would like to see added to the list of prohibitions in clauses 12 to 14 are bottom trawling or dragging, finfish aquaculture, and dredging, and we'd like to see some increased controls on dumping.

Why those specific prohibitions? First of all, there has been increased study of the impacts of bottom trawling or dragging on the benthic habitat in particular of the seabed of the marine environment. As recently as just this past December, an issue of a journal called Conservation Biology has brought together the research of scientists from around the world. They have concluded that this is a very destructive form of fishing and possibly one of the reasons that fisheries are declining around the world. We believe that particular type of fishing activity is not appropriate in a marine conservation area.

Finfish aquaculture is another area of mounting international concern in terms of the types of environmental impacts it can have on the marine environment. There are a number of these, from transmission of disease to wild species, declines in water quality, and the very fact of the introduction of exotic species in environments where they don't normally live.

This has become an issue, for example, in British Columbia, where Atlantic salmon are used in finfish aquaculture. They are escaping from their open net cages and there is now evidence that they are spawning and possibly competing with Pacific salmon. Overall, this just does not seem to be the type of activity that should happen in an area that is established for conservation purposes.

Dredging is similar in effect to bottom trawling, and we believe it should be prohibited in marine conservation areas. I understand, though, that there may be marine conservation areas established where there might be a need, for existing marine navigation purposes, for dredging, so we just think in that case maybe a small exception could be made.

On the issue of dumping, I think the prohibitions that are currently in the bill should be strengthened there, with exceptions allowed only for small-scale waste dumping for safety purposes and any fish waste dumping for fishing activities. In conjunction with our concern around dumping, I think there is still too much discretion for the superintendent to authorize dumping, as shown in subclause 16(1).

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I see you have several recommendations....

Ms. Sabine Jessen: Yes. I'm not going to go through them all; I'm just going to go through the key ones.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Sabine Jessen: I won't try to get through all of these pages with you verbally. I know that won't be possible.

I think I'm going to hand the next section over to Mary to address.

The Chairman: Ms. Granskou.

• 1555

Ms. Mary Granskou: Following on prohibitions and protection of the marine environment, clause 13 right now prohibits mining and oil and gas development in marine conservation areas. We feel this is of tremendous importance and we commend the inclusion of this clause. Non-renewable resource extraction is fundamentally incompatible with the conservation purposes of the bill by anyone under any circumstances, no matter who. Being clear on the legislation also provides for greater business certainty, and we are in support of that.

We therefore recommend that no exception be made for non-renewable resource extraction, and that subclause 16(6) as an exception be removed from this clause. That said, we support the traditional sustainable activities of aboriginal peoples, provided they are in keeping with the spirit and intent of this legislation.

Issues relating to development are most appropriately dealt with as boundaries are determined during the establishment of a marine conservation area. Following establishment, we support what the bill already provides for, which is that any subsequent reduction in the size of a marine conservation area be dealt with through an act of Parliament.

Our next recommendation deals with enhanced recognition of first nations, which we feel is also very important. CPAWS, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, is respected for our cooperative work with first nations, particularly in Canada's north, on conservation issues. We called for an explicit reference to aboriginal people in Bill C-26, the Parks Canada Agency Act, and it was subsequently included, also at the behest of first nations.

Secondly, I'd like to say we cannot and will not speak for first nations, but we offer these recommendations.

We would support the recommendation by first nations, in particular the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, to include a non-derogation clause in the act, such as is currently found in section 2.1 of the Oceans Act and other legislation. This is becoming common legislative practice and we would support that.

In addition, we agree that aboriginal peoples need to be recognized more forcefully in the preamble and are not now included specifically. Drawing on the recommendations again of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, we would propose the following clause be added to paragraph 3 of the preamble:

involve the aboriginal peoples of Canada, bodies established under land claims agreements, coastal communities, and others in establishing and maintaining marine conservation areas.

This also would include the consultation and the need to involve and engage coastal communities, which we feel is very important.

Sabine will give the summation of our recommendations.

Ms. Sabine Jessen: There are two final recommendations I want to discuss briefly, and then we'll wrap up.

One is around including the term “ecological integrity”, as I mentioned at the beginning. I think this would provide some consistency as well with what is stated in the National Parks Act. In fact, the phrase that's used in the current legislation, without compromising the structure and function of the ecosystem, in a sense is a definition of ecological integrity. So putting that term in this bill in a couple of places, as we've suggested in this brief, would strengthen it.

The final issue I would like to address here today is the need for some kind of interim protection. I know this is also being raised by other groups. Right now the bill proposes a five-year timeframe for developing a management plan. I think this is too long to ensure that these nationally significant areas are adequately protected during the period required to develop that plan. We'd like to suggest no new activities be allowed while the management plan is being developed, and some kind of mechanism be added to the legislation for an interim management plan, say within two years of an area being established.

So in some way I'd just like to say in general that, as you can tell, we are quite supportive of the legislation. We would like to see this go ahead, and we hope the committee will give serious consideration to some of the recommendations that were made today.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Jessen. Thank you, Ms. Granskou.

• 1600

We will now turn to the brief by the Canadian Nature Federation, Ms. Shelley Bryant and Mr. Kevin McNamee. Mr. McNamee, the floor is yours.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this opportunity to testify on Bill C-48. My name is Kevin McNamee, I'm the wildlands campaign director for the Canadian Nature Federation. I have 15 years of experience in the areas of national park establishment and management, and on many occasions this has taken me into issues related to the marine environment.

The Canadian Nature Federation, with over 40,000 members and supporters across Canada, is Canada's national voice for naturalists. Over the years we have maintained a strong commitment and involvement in marine conservation manners, and in particular in the establishment and management of marine conservation areas.

At our annual meeting in Sackville, New Brunswick, the membership of the Canadian Nature Federation unanimously passed a resolution calling on Parliament to pass the proposed national Marine Conservation Areas Act, and protect these areas from oil and gas exploration, mining and aggregate extraction, bottom trawling and dragging, dumping and finfish farming.

With me today is Shelley Bryant, who is largely responsible for the preparation of our brief. She is a graduate of Memorial University of Newfoundland and Mount Saint Vincent University. She has also worked as a wildlife biologist for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Since 1991, Ms. Bryant has also served as an environmental consultant, with her work focusing on marine issues, including community-based co-management, sustainable fisheries, and marine protected areas. She is currently enrolled in first year law at Dalhousie University, with a focus on marine environmental law. Both Ms. Bryant and the CNF testified before Parliament on the Canada Oceans Act.

We've submitted to you a fairly detailed brief. I'm not going to go through it completely. In fact I'm only going to touch on four issues in it. I would like to point out that we prepared it in a sort of clause-by-clause sequence, so as you go through your clause-by-clause you may find some issues in there that will help you. We are prepared to respond to questions, either today or afterwards, on those areas.

As an overview, the Canadian Nature Federation fully supports the federal government's initiative to pass legislation to enable the establishment and management of marine conservation areas. This legislation is a clear improvement over earlier proposals circulated by Parks Canada. We commend Parks Canada for its work in developing the national marine conservation concept and, in particular, Bill C-48.

Some of the strongest elements of Bill C-48 include affirmation of the importance of marine ecosystems to the preservation of global biodiversity; commitment to consultation and inclusive decision-making in marine conservation areas; commitment that, once established, marine conservation areas will not be reduced in size; emphasis on ecosystem management, the precautionary principle and the need for a representative system of marine conservation areas; a requirement for regular parliamentary reports; and the recognition of the importance of providing opportunities for coastal communities to continue to utilize the oceans' resources.

We do not view marine conservation areas as lockout areas or total set-asides. It's a very important understanding. However, we have several major concerns about Bill C-48. These include activities prohibited within MCAs, the cost-effective justification of a precautionary approach, clear title to lands requirement, management powers of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, powers of wardens and enforcement officers, mitigation or prevention of environmental damage, and the interim protection as brought up by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

The CNF believes this bill, once proclaimed, has the potential to be important complementary legislation to the Oceans Act. The different purposes and mandates of these two acts together could contribute significantly to the protection of our marine ecosystems without unnecessary duplication or wasting of scarce public resources. Parks Canada must continue to be a lead federal agency with respect to the formalized systematic conservation of marine habitat.

It has developed a systems plan and has a long-standing policy that has gone through two national consultation processes. While the Oceans Act remains one of this country's key marine conservation tools, the areas protected under it are and will tend to be small sites without the broader conservation value a system of protected areas envisioned here will have.

• 1605

I want to touch, Mr. Chairman, on a very brief history of public support around the marine protected areas concept, because after reading through Hansard I find it's very clear that a number of members have concerns that something is being proposed here, or it hasn't gone through consultation enough, or it may duplicate the Oceans Act. I think it's important to put this history in perspective.

We view Bill C-48 as a successful conclusion to work that began in 1970. At that time, a study for Parks Canada concluded that there was a need to establish a national marine parks program in Canada. In 1971 the Honourable Jean Chrétien, then parks minister, and the Honourable Jack Davis, then fisheries minister, secured an agreement in principle from cabinet to develop the concept of national marine parks. In 1979 Parks Canada made a public commitment to develop a national marine parks policy. Based on the results of 17 public consultations, and 100 written submissions, the federal government released its first national marine parks policy in 1986. Based on its experience with several marine parks and new information, Parks Canada revised this policy and released it in 1994 as the national marine conservation areas policy after 40 public consultation meetings.

For almost 30 years, Canada has studied, examined, experimented, discussed, consulted extensively on, and revised the marine conservation concept and its central goal of conserving representative samples of Canada's diverse marine regions. Thirty years. This legislation will finally provide Parks Canada with the necessary legal tools to administer a national marine conservation program, one that was envisioned three decades ago.

I'd like to touch on four elements of this bill, and The exact details are provided in our brief, but I want to touch on a couple of things.

First, prohibitions. Under clauses 12 through 15, the only prohibited activities in MCAs are disposal and use of public lands, mining, hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation, and the requirement for a special permit to dump. This list is remarkably incomplete. CNF is of the view that the following activities must be prohibited: dredging; blasting; the building of oil, gas, or power lines; the use of acoustic deterrence devices; dragging; and gillnetting, at least in the core and buffer zones.

The CNF does not support aquaculture activities in MCAs. While certain forms of shellfish aquaculture may be acceptable, we cannot support any type of finfish aquaculture.

With respect to aboriginal use of MCAs, we are fully supportive of the use of renewable resources. However, subclause 16(6), which flows from clause 13, which allows separate regulation to be made respecting activities that may be carried on by aboriginal people in a marine conservation area, is similarly troubling. The implication of this clause is that activities such as oil exploration and mining may be deemed rights under the Constitution Act, thereby opening the door to these activities occurring in MCAs. This is clearly contrary to the purpose of establishing MCAs and would be a serious error. There should be no exceptions to industrial use in clause 13.

On subclause 5(2), “Title to lands”, there is considerable lack of certainty about whether Canada can have clear title to submerged lands beyond 12 nautical miles. We have previously recommended to the federal government that this legislation provide for alternative and flexible means for the federal government to gain and retain authority over the submerged lands in question.

This subclause says that MCAs will be established only when clear federal title to lands is established, excluding any such land situated within the exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, of Canada. The exclusion of the clear title requirement for the EEZ may be an effort towards achieving such flexibility. If that is the intent, it's not clearly articulated in our perspective. Do the words mean that clear title is not needed within the EEZ, or that an amendment cannot be made for MCAs within the EEZ or something else? You can see I live in Ottawa—acronym after acronym.

Even if the above provision is meant to provide for flexibility beyond the territorial sea, it will not provide the necessary mechanism for MCA establishment in areas within the territorial sea where jurisdiction is complicated. The Saguenay-St. Lawrence marine park would not qualify as an MCA if clear title were required.

• 1610

Jurisdictional issues are getting more, not less, complicated; witness the current dispute between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. CNF believes that in order to be in any way effective, the legislation must not necessarily require clear title to be vested in the crown. Rather, the legislation should also allow for cooperative agreements to protect critical habitat in jurisdictionally complicated areas. Without such a mechanism the minister's ability to actually establish MCAs is seriously obstructed.

The third point is on management by the minister. Subclause 8(1) states:

The Minister is responsible for the administration, management and control of marine conservation areas in relation to matters not assigned to any other Minister of the Crown.

CNF is troubled by this provision, especially when taken in conjunction with subclauses 9(4) and 16(2), which say that other ministries will need to sanction management initiatives before they can be carried out. The effect of these provisions is a serious impairment of the minister's ability to carry out her mandate of marine protection within an MCA.

We point out that the National Parks Act places no such limitations on the minister. It is difficult to imagine just what of substance the minister would have authority for in an MCA. In national parks the minister has absolute authority and in marine conservation areas he or she has almost none.

I see you're looking at your watch, Mr. Chairman, so I'm going to try to conclude. I just have a few more points to make.

On the section of mitigation of environmental damage, this section is extremely weak, seriously compromises the minister's ability to effect any meaningful prevention or mitigation of environmental damage, and lacks any sense of urgency. This section indicates that cleaning up a discharged substance within an MCA is the responsibility of the person who discharged the substance only to the degree of taking reasonable measures. If they fail to take those reasonable measures, the Government of Canada will perform the clean-up and pass on the cost, but only if no action may be taken under the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, or CEPA.

In our opinion, far too much room exists for an offender to argue that, one, they did not discharge or deposit the substance within the MCA; two, their actions to clean up were reasonable, even if only cursory and completely ineffective; or three, action under one of the other acts should have been taken and therefore the attempts of the minister to deal with it were invalid.

The inadequacy of this section raises additional concerns. It does not treat the discharge of these substances as an offence, it only treats the failure to clean up as an offence. An individual could in effect discharge poison continuously for many months, and so long as they were not requested to clean it up there would be no offence and no recourse under this act. In our view, discharge of harmful substances must be treated as an offence.

The use of the phrase “within the MCA” will exempt any substances discharged from outside of the MCA but that travel to it. “Within” should be changed to “into”, and for greater clarity, the section should include land-based and marine-based sources of pollutants.

The weakness of this section creates an impossible situation for the caretakers of the marine conservation areas, or reserves. The legislation needs much strengthening in this regard. We see no reason why these other acts should prevail over this one.

As we stated at the outset, the CNF believes this bill, to be effective, should carry within it all of the powers necessary to adequately protect the marine areas it establishes.

In conclusion, the Canadian Nature Federation urges this committee to pass Bill C-48 and to incorporate, or at least consider, the changes recommended in our position paper. Finally, this committee should also recommend that Parks Canada be given the appropriate human and financial resources by Parliament to significantly accelerate the creation of new marine conservation areas in order to adequately represent the federal government's 29 national marine regions.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I would like to say to the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society representatives, and also to the representatives of the Canadian Nature Federation, that although we didn't have time to hear all your recommendations in detail, all the members have received your briefs, and the officials of the department as well, and you can be sure they will be taken into serious consideration by us.

• 1615

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Claude Grégoire represents the Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec. Mr. Grégoire sent us his brief by fax, but we unfortunately experienced a transmission problem. We had to call Quebec City to ask them to send it again. The brief is in the process of being copied for Committee members. In the meantime, Mr. Grégoire will make his opening comments, and the brief will be provided to you as soon as it arrives from the Clerk's Office.

Mr. Grégoire.

Mr. Jean Claude Grégoire (Member of the Board of Directors, Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I'd like to thank the Chairman and members of the Committee for giving us this opportunity to appear with respect to Bill C-48, the legislation establishing marine conservation areas.

The Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels, on whose behalf I am appearing today, represents approximately 80% of all the professional fishers in Quebec. They are primarily inshore fishers who generally use fixed gear and fish along the coastline. We represent some 850 professional fishers in Quebec.

To begin with, the Alliance is in agreement with the principles set out in Bill C-48. They are very fine principles, and everyone has been anxiously awaiting this legislation. There has been ongoing discussion of the concept for quite a while and it has taken some time to come to fruition.

However, fishers are far more interested in practical issues. How will an initiative such as this be implemented? Indeed, the Alliance has a number of concerns in that regard.

We feel it is important to make Committee members and whoever will be responsible for making the final decisions about the legislation aware of the fact that the policy establishing marine conservation areas should not be equated with policies respecting parks and land-based reserves, such as ecological, forest or wildlife reserves.

First of all, the Alliance wishes to point out that most marine species, such as fish and certain mammals, unlike land-based animals, are migratory species that move around, rather than staying in one area. That is already a handicap. Establishing a conservation area is not necessarily a solution in the mid- or long term when it comes to protecting most marine species. I will come back to this point in a moment. That is one of our prime concerns.

Our second concern—and some of the previous presenters also raised this—is that a certain number of activities will have to be stopped or at least controlled much more effectively. I am thinking here of activities such as fishing, which affects the seabed. That is the most fragile area. As fishers, we have noted, particularly in the last 50 years, a very rapid deterioration of the sea, of the resources found there and of what can actually live there.

I would point out that at the turn of the century, approximately 100 years ago, in the southern Gaspé region alone— which is a relatively small area extending a couple of hundred miles along the coast in Chaleur Bay—there were 4,000 active fishers. At this time, there are less than 400, which means that about 90% of the people who made a living partially or entirely from the fishery have disappeared.

• 1620

A number of factors have contributed to that. At one point, industrialization, with its focus on principles such as economies of scale, specialization, and so forth led to far more intensive fishing than could be tolerated by waterways, particularly in an area like the Gulf, which is almost like a great lake. The Gulf is essentially a great lake, rather than a sea.

So, we have noted a deterioration. I think that all observers would agree that industrial fishing, which brought with it excessive use of increasingly sophisticated mobile gear, was one of the major contributing factors to the collapse of fish stocks and probably to the significant deterioration of the seabed. Since 1993, a moratorium has been in effect in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Despite that moratorium, which reduced fishing activity by 90 or 95%, fish stocks are not recovering. Fish stocks affected by the moratorium, primarily cod, which is one of the most important resources for the fishing industry in the Maritime provinces and maritime Quebec, is not recovering.

The deterioration of the seabed caused by overfishing and excessive use of mobile gear constantly dragging the seabed is probably a major cause.

In our view, the establishment of marine conservation areas or parks will require much more comprehensive coordination. The approach will have to focus less on geography than on controlling human activity in the marine environment.

So, this activity will have to be not only coordinated but properly reflected in policies regarding the use of different types of fishing gear, fishing zones and certain other activities. We are talking here about mining exploration or development and activities in which other federal departments are involved: dredging for the purposes of harbour or seaway development, and so forth.

There are a great many activities that will have to be closely monitored. As far as long-term conservation is concerned, the future really involves controlling activities in much larger areas than what would be envisaged through marine conservation areas. By definition, a marine conservation area cannot be huge. If it is huge, it is unlikely to be accepted by those industries or communities that depend on the sea for their livelihood. It will clearly have to be acceptable to stakeholders.

The Alliance also believes that this policy of establishing marine conservation areas can only succeed if it is part of a much more concerted approach on the part of legislators, managers and stakeholders, particularly fishers who have been harvesting marine resources along Canadian coasts for almost 400 years.

If we fail to adopt such an approach, this initiative is doomed to failure. A marine area is very different from a land- based reserve. It is very difficult to control and protect. It is wide open. Not only is it hard to protect, but reliable scientific information about such sites is difficult to obtain. Because such an area is scientifically inaccessible, you tend to work a lot more with unconfirmed data or assumptions of what exists than with actual scientific knowledge of what you are dealing with. That is one of the weaknesses of protected marine areas, compared to parks or land-based reserves, where it is much easier to carry out scientific testing or prepare inventories and where control is much more easily maintained.

I would just like to summarize the Alliance's position. We think it's important right from the start to be conscious of the limitations inherent in the concept of marine conservation areas, limitations that are far more significant when you are dealing with marine species.

• 1625

Protecting the seabed is in itself a fine goal, but it does not guarantee the preservation of marine species which, as I said earlier, are a lot more migratory than land-based species.

It is important to be aware of that limitation and work along the lines of integrating fishing operations, which is an industry of particular interest to us. We are in favour of establishing not a simple zoning system involving total prohibition, but a progressive system whereby some activities would be either prohibited or partially prohibited, or very tightly monitored and controlled. We think that is a more appropriate approach than simply establishing highly restricted and highly protected areas whose aim is to preserve the immediate environment as well as some sedentary marine species, but which will ultimately have very little impact in terms of protecting the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which constitutes an ecosystem in itself.

However many small areas we decide to turn into MCAs inside the Gulf, we will not protect the Gulf as a whole. It is through better coordination and more rational control of human activity in the Gulf as a whole that we will truly succeed in protecting it. Under such a scenario, marine conservation areas become one component of a more comprehensive approach.

This kind of approach could have a very positive impact—or at least we hope so. But we have to expect a great deal of resistance from stakeholders, particularly industrial stakeholders. Industries that fish with mobile gear will be the first to suffer the negative effects of creating these protected areas. And as we all know, they won't take it lying down.

In practical terms, I am very concerned that marine conservation areas, rather than protecting the environment and marine species for future generations, will become a kind of pretext for the government, who will then be able to say: “You see, I am protecting the environment and marine species. I have established these parks.” I think that would be very dangerous. Once established, these parks will have very little impact, as I was saying earlier, unless they are closely coordinated with other activities taking place over much broader areas, whether we're talking about the Gulf, the Grand Banks or the Pacific coast.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Grégoire, for your testimony. We want to thank you for coming all the way from the Gaspé to be with us, because you bring us the viewpoint of a professional, career fisher. Your perspective is very important to us.

[English]

I'll open the meeting to questions. Mr. Mark.

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

I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Grégoire, what is the position of your organization regarding this legislation? Are you opposed to it or are you for it?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Claude Grégoire: As I tried to explain a few moments ago, we support the principle of establishing a system of marine conservation areas, because we could not possibly be against the idea. No one could reasonably be against any initiative taken to preserve or safeguard our marine heritage for future generations.

As a fisher or as a Canadian citizen, I have to say I'm not proud of what has taken place in the last half century in terms of the way marine resources have been harvested and the lack of a mid- or long-term vision. The fact is that we have shown no long-term vision whatsoever when it comes to the management or harvesting of fish resources by fishers or processing plants.

• 1630

If we develop a long-term vision, a comprehensive vision that includes all human activities carried out in the marine environment, and if as part of that comprehensive approach, we are able to develop a system of marine conservation areas, that will be very positive. But it will have to be closely coordinated with other activities and not seen as a one time self-contained operation.

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark: I will ask Mr. Grégoire again. I know that ecosystem preservation is a motherhood issue, and I don't think any of us are in opposition to it. But is your organization opposed to or for this legislation as written in Bill C-48?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean Claude Grégoire: No, the Alliance is not opposed to the legislation, but it does have certain reservations with respect to the scope of the bill, depending on the way it is implemented. If it is implemented as a self-contained operation, it will be doomed to failure. If it is implemented as one initiative among many aimed at ensuring long-term protection of marine resources, it has a chance of success. That will mean close daily cooperation with the people who harvest those resources, including aboriginal peoples and fishers of all kinds.

[English]

The Chairman: This will be your last question, Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: I'll address my last question to Mr. McNamee. Regarding MCAs, how many should we have and how should we decide where they should be?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: As currently envisioned under Parks Canada's systems plan, the goal is to represent each one of the 29 marine regions, so at a bare minimum we're talking about 29 marine conservation areas. Given the fact that by Parks Canada's own science some of the ones we already have only partially represent some of these marine regions, we're going to need more.

With regard to where to start, we've already started. A number of areas are being planned. One that Sabine Jessen has worked on very closely is the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area. That could be our next one. I think if you go through the documents, there's a really good indication as to what we have to do, where we need to start, and where we have started.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Dumas, do you have any questions?

Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have a question for Mr. Grégoire.

In your opening statement, you talked about size. You said that these areas should not be too large. In your view, what would the ideal size be for a marine conservation area?

Mr. Jean Claude Grégoire: Well, the size may vary, depending on a specific marine area's type or purpose. If we're talking in terms of ecosystems, the Gulf in itself constitutes an ecosystem. Any part of the Gulf is necessarily incomplete. The Gulf itself, as an ecosystem, receives cross-border species every year that come up from the south along the American coast. I am thinking in particular of species such as mackerel, tuna or spiny dogfish. It is not a closed ecosystem. It is an open ecosystem that receives wildlife species from other areas. It is very large. Should we designate the entire Gulf a marine conservation area? There are approximately 6,400 fishers operating in the Gulf, and there are a great many communities whose livelihood depends on the fishery. If you decided tomorrow morning that the Gulf were to be designated a marine conservation area, you would set off a war, the Gulf war—albeit not exactly the same Gulf war....

Honourable Members: Ah, ah!

Mr. Maurice Dumas: Surely the intention is not to...

Mr. Jean Claude Grégoire: Our vision is different. We believe there have to be controls. Perhaps zoning is the way to bring in those controls, but the most important thing is to control human activities; that is far more important than geographical location. However large your marine conservation area, if you don't control activities in adjacent areas that are likely to affect the seabed, sooner or later your marine conservation area will be either destroyed or severely damaged by whatever activities are being carried out in neighbouring areas. So, MCAs must be part of a comprehensive vision aimed at controlling all activities that affect the marine environment.

• 1635

Some of the witnesses present spoke earlier of bottom trawling or dragging, which are extremely hard on the seabed. I would remind you that in 1980 or 1981, an economic summit of sorts was held in Memramcook, New Brunswick, on the maritime fishery in eastern Canada. At the time, all stakeholders made very specific recommendations with respect to protection, long-term goals, protection of the sea and so on to the federal government, which was represented by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Try to get a copy of the paper if you can and read it. You'll see that as early as 1980, the Canadian government was being warned about the possible collapse of fish stocks and against excessive industrial fishing as a means of harvesting stocks, but nothing was ever done. Those recommendations were simply shelved. Nothing more was ever heard. Then in 1993, everything that we were expecting actually happened. Everyone operating in the Gulf had predicted that it would happen, because it was easy to predict. There was no way such intensive industrial fishing could be practised in as small an environment as the Gulf without there being negative repercussions. We have not yet recovered, and I am not sure we will in the short term.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: So, you're saying that controlling activities is more important than size.

Mr. Jean Claude Grégoire: Exactly. It would be possible to have a zoning system based on concentric circles. It is known that there is greater biological and marine diversity in some areas than in others. Perhaps we should start with those ones, although they are impacted by their immediate and not so immediate surroundings when other species migrate to them, from quite a distance in some cases. It's important to start with a rich environment, but it's also important to have a policy in place with respect to adjacent areas, which do have an impact on them.

If we don't do that, the whole exercise will be pointless. We're not talking about a land-based park here. It's a little like trying to protect the caribou or snow goose by designating such and such an area a park. We are talking about migratory species. The only way to protect the caribou would be to designate half of Quebec or half of Canada, because that is the caribou's living space. Just try it. We'd be better off targeting certain activities.

Land-based parks and reserves have been complemented by other policies, with respect to hunting, fishing, mining exploration and logging. A number of policies have been brought in as part of a more comprehensive approach. And that is exactly what is needed for the seabed.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

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

[Translation]

My first question is to Mr. Grégoire. I live in an area where one of the main activities is fishing. The fishing industry is a very important part of our economy. As a fisher, what is your perspective on these marine conservation areas that are planned? What will their impact be on the fishing industry? How will the people you represent be affected by these measures? Will they be in favour of MCAs or against them? I'm trying to establish what kind of impact they'll have on the industry itself.

The Chairman: Mr. Grégoire, can you give us a more concise answer to that question?

Mr. Jean Claude Grégoire: I'll try.

The Chairman: We enjoy hearing what you have to say but our enemy is time.

Mr. Jean Claude Grégoire: Well, there is a conflict between short-term industrial interests and long-term goals. For some fishers, it's strictly a matter of survival. For others, it's a matter of profitability. Their initial reaction will likely be extremely negative because they will feel threatened by the move to establish these marine conservation areas.

As for inshore fishers, who are represented by the Alliance, the reaction will be far more nuanced. We agree that certain activities involving the seabed must cease. Indeed, we have been recommending for almost 30 years now that activities that involve trawling or dragging the seabed with mobile gear be stopped. For that sort of thing, you will automatically have our support.

• 1640

We also know that some of the practices of inshore fishers—for example, the use of gillnets that result in ghost fishing when they are forgotten or lost, have to be much more tightly controlled than is currently the case. We are aware of that.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. McNamee, I believe it was you who made reference to clear title. By this do you mean that if...? For example, yesterday we were listening to people from Bonavista Bay and they were saying there was an enormous amount of fishing and fish processing taking place in that area. Would that mean, or would you want it in the act, that for an area that is designated such as that one, the parks department would own and have clear title to each and every one of those pieces of property that are on the boundary or in the water, on the coastline?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: Well, I'm going to ask Shelley Bryant to deal with the details of this, but I want to be clear that we think there has to be something more in the legislation than just the one option of clear federal title, in that there should be a number of options, because as I understand it, we get into quite a complex range of jurisdictions and issues, which I'll ask Ms. Bryant to go into a bit. But what we're concerned about is that progress on a conservation agenda that is only just starting may stall if we get into a lot of wrangling over clear title. We think there should be other alternative arrangements where there is agreement to proceed.

Do you want to touch on that also? That's the part of the country you come from.

Ms. Shelley Bryant: Sure.

The Chairman: My understanding of what you have said was a bit of a reversal of the sense of your question.

Mr. Mark Muise: That's why I'm asking. I wasn't sure in what sense it was said, Mr. Chairman, so I want clarification.

The Chairman: All right.

Ms. Shelley Bryant: I think what we were saying was exactly what Kevin has just said, that the absolute requirement for clear title will pose a significant barrier to the establishment of the marine conservation areas. It'll be fine in Bonavista if Newfoundland says, fine, you can have ownership over this area and manage it as you see fit under the marine conservation area. But where the province might put a block, the area might fail; the establishment might fail simply because of the province putting up the block.

If you're looking near shore, out to three nautical miles, you're dealing with the province. If you're between three nautical miles and twelve out to the edge of the territorial sea, there's another whole issue of whose jurisdiction that is exactly. Then beyond that the question is, of course, whether anybody can in fact have clear title, or if all you can have beyond the territorial sea is perhaps sovereign rights to exploit the resources that are there.

One of the questions we had about subclause 5(2) in the bill was whether in fact this subclause is saying there will be no requirement for clear title in the EEZ, therefore, beyond the 12 miles, or whether in fact there will be clear title requirement. That was one question we had, just a clarification of the wording.

But as for our position, I can see the value of having clear title. I mean, it makes it clear who owns it, who's managing it; and when there are issues that come up between users or between departments, it's really clear—you know, this is the federal government's and this is Parks Canada's. I can see that being desirable, but I don't think it should be absolutely required.

Mr. Mark Muise: Because it could impede the establishment—

Ms. Shelley Bryant: Yes, so have the option. Maybe aim for clear title. If it doesn't work, look for other mechanisms.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey, followed by Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I would first like to thank the witnesses, and especially Mr. Grégoire for his presentation, which I found very interesting and imaginative. I really have the feeling that there is a consensus around the table. When you see things from that perspective, it's really impressive.

I have a question for Mr. Grégoire and another for Mr. Amos.

• 1645

Mr. Grégoire, my question deals with the process that has been followed up until now for the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine area.

Based on what you know about it, would you say this process is a good model to follow? What are the views of your members in that respect, if indeed they were involved in the consultation process?

Mr. Jean Claude Grégoire: I am not actually very familiar with that particular model of MCA because I have been more involved in issues relating to the moratorium and in trying to deal with the problems currently being experienced by fishers, particularly in the Gulf. So I really can't voice an opinion on the example you've cited.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you. I admire your candour.

[English]

I was going to ask Mr. Amos, now that he's at the table, to respond to a point on the list of prohibitions that was made by groups who appeared yesterday and today. With yesterday's witnesses, certainly from the environmental organization, there was agreement on the additions that should be made. There's an impressive overlap, and it's almost as if you guys got your act together. I'm not suggesting that. But between the suggested additions to the list, we heard some protest, I think, or some objections from the Newfoundland group concerning aquaculture in particular. I would like you to tell us if we can add to this list and, if not, what the rationale is for keeping it so restrictive. What is our answer to the folks who today and yesterday told us they'd like to extend the list?

The Chairman: Just for the record, Mr. Bruce Amos is the director general, national parks; Ms. Susan Katz, who is with him, is the director, legislation and policy, national parks; and

[Translation]

Mr. Laurent Tremblay, who is responsible for the Quebec region, is also with us.

[English]

Mr. Amos.

Mr. Bruce Amos: With regard to the issue of prohibitions and which activities should be prohibited by law and which could be controlled by means of a permit under regulation, that whole area has been the subject of extensive discussion in the policy discussions, which have been mentioned, building up to the presentation of this bill. I think there's no question that there are different views on the appropriate balance to strike between a list of prohibitions being large or small.

In principle, when you have those different views, one of the factors to be weighed is how successful you are if you have a longer list of prohibitions. Are you going to be successful in gaining support or finding possible areas to go forward with the marine conservation area, and at the same time are you going to have the necessary flexibility to respond on a case-by-case basis to issues as they might arise?

The approach that's taken in the policy Parks Canada has developed, which others have mentioned they were involved in, and in the legislation is to have a prohibition on non-renewable resource exploration and exploitation and on ocean dumping, but with some flexibility for it to be permitted.

Beyond that, the other activities that people have mentioned are not prohibited in the proposed legislation, but there are means in the regulation-making powers by which the activities could be controlled. They could be prohibited in certain zones. So the regulation-making authorities that are here, including those to set up a zoning system, could be a tool by which various human activities, to which Mr. Grégoire referred, could be controlled on a case-by-case basis in an individual area. That determination, though, would be done with consultation in the process of studying the feasibility of an area before it's established and in the preparation of a management plan afterwards.

So the ability is there to do that, but the approach of not using a general prohibition would allow it to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

• 1650

Mr. John Godfrey: I'd like to ask one question of our visitors, and that is what would be the top item on your list of horrors? They all sound pretty awful to me, but what do I know? If you had to pick one to add to the list, would it be—I don't know—dragging, dredging, blasting?

Ms. Sabine Jessen: Bottom dragging would be one, for sure.

Mr. John Godfrey: Would that be a deal breaker?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Ms. Granskou.

Ms. Mary Granskou: I wonder if I could comment briefly. Let's start with conservation objectives. We are fully supportive of the need to involve sectors and coastal communities. We are completely supportive of that goal.

I think Mr. Grégoire said it very well. The impacts of dragging are hugely significant, and he's in a position to know first-hand. Our position would be that if marine conservation areas are going to offer the highest level of conservation on a regional or site-specific basis in the ocean, then surely they should offer the highest level of conservation. That's why we feel that bottom dragging is not an appropriate activity. We are, however, in support of fishing activities on a zoning basis, and I think we're very supportive of some of the current concerns Mr. Grégoire raises on that front. So that's where we're coming from.

Also, in view of the fact that a marine conservation area is not the be-all and end-all for conservation of the sea—and that's an extremely good point—it can be a platform upon which other conservation initiatives can be launched.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): The first question is addressed to our first witnesses. If none of your suggestions for amendments to the bill were accepted or retained, would you still suggest the passage into law of the bill in its current form? Would you still support that?

Ms. Mary Granskou: I think we'd like to reserve judgment on that. We would have to look at what particular amendments were made and what contribution they make to conservation.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No. If none of your amendments were accepted for whatever reason—and we've been through this before in another instance, you may recall—would your organization support passage of the bill as it is?

Ms. Mary Granskou: My expert says no, we would not.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you. I address the same question to the second group.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I should have bet some money that you were going to ask that question, Mr. Member.

Our membership passed a resolution that included a list of things it did not want to have in the bill, which included bottom trawling and dragging. So going back to Mr. Godfrey's question, I find it very difficult to choose one of those activities.

We were discussing this with some of the other groups. For us, if there were a deal breaker, it would be on the list of prohibitions. At the same time, I am not going to say to you yes or no. What I would do is await the outcome of this committee's deliberations, and then we would take it up with the members of the House when it gets reported back. We view this as part of the process, so I'm not going to give you a yes or no at this moment. If you do not amend the list, we would continue to advocate that this list be expanded as it goes through the various steps, including in the Senate of Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Grégoire, I have to congratulate you. You made an excellent presentation. I think you have succeeded in striking the proper balance between conflicting interests.

I'd like to ask you about process rather substance, because it is both very clear and very constant. In terms of process, you said at the beginning of your presentation that discussions about this have been ongoing for some time and that the Alliance you represent would like to see this come to fruition.

• 1655

Am I to conclude that there were consultations that brought you some level of satisfaction with respect to the process that has brought us this far?

Mr. Jean-Claude Grégoire: Well, it isn't easy to answer that question because I did not get involved in the consultations at the outset. However, our presence here today is a clear indication that we want to talk about this and make our concerns known to you. We will take advantage of every opportunity to do so.

If I had to answer the question you put earlier to the two witnesses who preceded me, I would say that even in its current form, the legislation will clearly be an improvement, at least in principle. However, if improvement is important and we drop the very elements that will give some teeth to this long-term conservation approach, then the legislation could become nothing more than a pretext for the government to give itself a higher profile via a long-term vision of resource conservation. But that vision would be purely theoretical. In practical terms, things would remain exactly as they are now, and my view is that the end result would not be very positive.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Muise.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is going to Mr. Amos.

We understand that an Order in Council can add to an MCA but that we need an act of Parliament to remove from it. I'll give you an example. During the consultation process, it's agreed that certain types of fishing can take place in an MCA that all parties agree should be created. Would it be conceivable that an Order in Council could be passed in a year or two prohibiting any fishing and effectively hindering or potentially taking away the livelihood of people from those communities?

Mr. Bruce Amos: I'm not entirely sure I understand the question, Mr. Muise, but let me try.

If, as a result of consultations, an understanding is reached that—

Mr. Mark Muise: Let me clarify. Last week we were told that an MCA would not be created unilaterally, which is to say that if certain groups in the negotiation process with Parks are not in favour of the MCA being started, none would be formed. Let's say that one is formed because the fishing community, for example, is in agreement on their ability to fish. The MCA is created. Two years down the road an Order in Council is made saying that no fishing whatsoever will take place. All of a sudden the livelihood of these people is gone. Is it conceivable that such a thing could happen?

Mr. Bruce Amos: At that stage it would be a regulation under the act, by which different zones are established. Different uses are permitted or not permitted within those zones. The intention clearly would be to put in place regulations that reflect the understandings reached at the time the area was established. If it was understood that certain zones would receive a certain level of protection, and if it was understood that certain fishing activities or other activities wouldn't take place in that zone, the government's commitment would be to propose regulations that give effect to such an understanding. Could those regulations be changed at a future time? The answer is that they could be.

Regulations can be changed, but there are a number of provisions in this bill that require consultations at all the key stages. During the preparation of a management plan, the legislation requires an ongoing advisory committee. I might add as well that the federal government's regulatory process itself requires public consultation in the preparation of every regulation. There are safeguards to make sure there is adequate public consultation before a regulation is put in place, or before a new regulation is put there to change an existing one.

• 1700

The other factor I might mention is that I would expect these areas will often be the subject of a federal-provincial agreement. Commitments entered into in the federal-provincial agreement would be honoured by the federal government, of course.

I think it's realistic to expect that any such regulations might, as a result of public consultation—and hopefully with a good measure of public support—need to be reviewed, though. With new scientific information, for example, there may be reasons for those regulations to be changed. However, I think the safeguards are in the bill to ensure that this is not done in an arbitrary fashion by the government. The whole context of the bill is that this will be done with appropriate consultation, particularly with those directly involved because of this legislation and federal policy governing regulations.

Ms. Shelley Bryant: I'd like to add something to that, if I could.

On the whole issue of prohibitions, if you look at the preamble of the bill, it lays out the reasons for why the bill has been prepared and why it is being contemplated. Those are very much conservation-based objectives. You can't achieve those objectives if the list of prohibitions is not adequately developed.

I think the list that we've actually proposed is quite modest, and I'm pleased to hear that our ideas are similar to what other conservation groups have proposed. We didn't get together—at least, I don't know what World Wildlife Fund was presenting. Anyway, I think what that should probably tell the members is that these are the top areas that really need to be restricted or prohibited. We could have added a whole lot more. Frankly, there are a lot more activities that go on that would be quite compromising to a marine conservation area, but I think we did try to scale back and be realistic.

The fact that activities can be prohibited under regulation or by management plan is not adequate. In my opinion, regulations and management plans can be changed too easily. They're not law in the same way as having them in the statute itself.

The other thing I'd like to point out might seem to be a nitpicky interpretation, but paragraph 12(b), under “Prohibitions”, reads:

no person shall use or occupy public lands in a marine conservation area.

My reading on that says it could be interpreted to mean no fishing, or any fishing that involved use of the land—no dragging, no gillnetting, no lobster pots, no crab pots, no flounder nets, no kind of groundfish nets at all, not even surface nets that had an anchor on the bottom. It could also mean no other sorts of nasty things, such as dredging or blasting.

For clarity, I think it's important that the bill spell out what is prohibited and what is not in order to avoid possible conflict in the future.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Mr. Muise, do you have any further questions?

Mr. Mark Muise: No, not for now.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Mr. Dumas.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: My question is addressed to Mary. I don't dare attempt to pronounce her last name.

Last week, an aboriginal witness whose name I've forgotten did not seem particularly enthusiastic about Parliament's passing this legislation.

On page 3 of your brief, you refer to recognition of the rights of First Nations. I have only a very short question. What is your current relationship with the aboriginal peoples as regards that legislation?

[English]

Ms. Mary Granskou: Perhaps I'll ask Sabine Jessen to address work with the Haida in particular in relation to Gwaii Haanas, because I think it's pertinent to your question. However, we have extensive relations with first nations, particularly in the north. We are working very closely with six first nations in the Yukon at this present time on conservation and protected areas proposals. Also, in the Northwest Territories we are engaged in a dialogue with a number of first nations, leading toward working in an assistive capacity, where appropriate, on conservation initiatives.

• 1705

So I would say our comments are grounded in terms of our conservation experience, if that's helpful. Sabine can comment on our work on the coast of B.C.

Did I answer your question? Okay.

Ms. Sabine Jessen: Our work on two areas in British Columbia, both in the southern Gulf Islands and in Gwaii Haanas in the Queen Charlotte Islands, will involve first nations. We've had more direct contact with the Haida, who are currently involved in a co-management arrangement with the federal government for the terrestrial part of Gwaii Haanas. And they are looking at becoming involved in the management on the marine side. They are currently evaluating what they would like to see happen on the marine side. We have been offering to help to work with them, and I think we share a number of conservation objectives for the area.

In the southern Gulf Islands, we've just begun the dialogue with the first nations there; that process is really just begun. I think first nations see some opportunities here. I think one of the opportunities they see with what's presented in this bill is the opportunity to have more local control. And I think this is an issue that's been raised at other times even more broadly beyond the first nations community, the need for more control by coastal communities over what is happening in the marine environment upon which they depend.

I think that is going to be a very key consideration for first nations up and down the coast in terms of how they get involved with this, and there will be some that will be in agreement and some that won't. Some think this might be a way to do it; some might prefer to wait and do it some other way. I can't speak for all of them.

I think there is some interest, and there's some broader interest, actually.

One of the other things the committee might not know is happening in British Columbia is that the federal and provincial government agencies are working together to be very coordinated. This really addresses an issue that Mr. Grégoire raised as well, this need for coordination among the different agencies that have responsibility for marine protected areas. A group of the first nations currently on the coast are looking at the joint strategy that the different government agencies have put together, looking at how they can improve that, how they can get involved, and whether they have any specific issues.

So I think in a way the concept of marine protected areas is still a new one for first nations, and they are evaluating how they might use this to protect some of their interests, some of their concerns, and have a greater say over what goes on.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: Merci.

Ms. Mary Granskou: If I could add just one final comment, we were heartened to see in the brief by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board that they wish to assure the standing committee that they support the government's intention to protect and conserve marine ecosystems. It's really how and what the level of recognition is, and again we do not propose to speak on behalf of first nations, but that's another comment.

Mr. Maurice Dumas: Merci.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

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

One of the key objections we continually hear as various organizations or representatives of those organizations come forward, is one of economic impact of the legislation, or potential economic impact. Whether it's the fishing industry or whether it's aboriginal peoples talking about fishing and oil and gas exploration, time and time again we're cautioned on what the potential economic impacts of the legislation might be to various municipalities or community groups in all the coastal regions.

So my question might be to the director general or perhaps to one of the conservation groups. I'd be interested if anybody could offer me some information.

• 1710

I was going to go to a written brief that was submitted to us—you quite possibly haven't had the opportunity to review it—from the North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force. They provided a written presentation and suggest they can't understand why oil and gas exploration has been restricted, period. They state, supported by some fairly substantive analyses to verify their statement, that the oil and gas exploration is only responsible for about 1.5% of the total escape of hydrocarbons into the world's oceans, and these escapes in their environment typically disappear as quickly as they appear. They've provided reference to some studies as well.

If I take this information at face value, I would have to ask if there is any information that supports the negative impacts of oil and gas exploration on local ecosystems or specific ecosystems, whether it be from hydrocarbon escape or anchoring to the sea bottom. I'd be interested in knowing that. Then I have a supplementary, if I may.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I'd just like to start with a short comment, and through some of the work that's going on in Gwaii Haanas you can get a fuller idea.

The thing to remember is, in the context of this bill and with what's on paper, the economic impact of this bill is nil. The impact starts to come into play when you start setting up specific areas. I don't think you can look at this bill and say it will have x impact or will result in the loss of y dollars. You can't say that, because this is an enabling piece of legislation.

You start to understand the fuller impacts of a marine conservation area when you get into the feasibility study of an area. In my experience, you get a lot of opposition based on the concept, but once you start to see logging, mining and other industries engaged in the discussion in a specific area, you start to realize there are different ways to mitigate those impacts. So I think you need to see that in perspective.

Perhaps, Sabine, through your—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Kevin, just to respond to your remarks, I couldn't agree with you more insofar as these organizations are speculating on economic impact rather than realizing economic impact. Until such time as the boundaries are defined, nobody is going to be able to say this costs $10 or $10 million. But if we are going to define a specific area at some point in the future, taking into consideration the ecosystem or the geographic boundaries, whatever that specific area might be, and we have in the legislation wording that quite simply restricts oil and gas exploration—I'm not referring to logging or fishing—is there any substance to suggest that shouldn't be there, that there are negative consequences?

If we define a certain area and 15 years from now on the east coast we identify a significant gas find located within that area, and the legislation restricts the oil and gas exploration of it, there has to be something of substance to say this is why we are restricting it; it has the potential to have this type of negative environmental impact.

Ms. Shelley Bryant: I'd like to offer a bit of a comment on that.

The framework in which I would answer that question is the length of time one industry or activity over another might provide an economic benefit—the duration. If you're trying to balance a number of fisheries versus oil and gas—and that's kind of what happens here when you're looking at the oil and gas exploration issue—you might have a huge boon to the economy for a short period of time with an oil and gas development. If you look at a fishery, on the other hand, which is potentially damaged by the oil and gas development, that fishery can actually give you economic input for a very long period of time.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I'm looking for some substance, something substantive to define that there is damage.

• 1715

Ms. Shelley Bryant: Sure. If you take the North Sea, for instance, granted activities have changed quite a bit and the oil and gas industry is different from which it was when it first started there, but the North Sea fishery is just about gone, and the oil and gas industry is quite lucrative there. It depends on the type of drilling muds that are used. I'm not an oil and gas expert by any means, but if you use water versus oil it can have a tremendous impact. So it's not just whether it's done or not, but how it's done.

I've heard a number of reports from people in Hibernia that there's a lot more oil leaking there—small-scale, low-grade kinds of constant leakage. That's right on the Grand Banks, in the areas where fish spawn. The oil and gas industry is right when they say spills only amount to 1.5% overall, or whatever it is.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I'm not pro or against. I'm simply looking for factual data that would support the inclusion of the restriction of oil and gas exploration within a defined perimeter. I'm not hearing anything other than hypotheticals or things of the past. I'm looking for something of substance.

Ms. Sabine Jessen: Quite a lot of work has been done as a result of the work on the Sable Gully proposal. I wasn't personally involved in that particular one, but in terms of the impacts of oil and gas exploration and development, those were very thoroughly looked at in regard to the Sable Gully. I would suggest some of the information be brought to the committee on that, because it's probably the most recent one where those kinds of issues have been raised.

I'd like to make two other points, though, related to your question around oil and gas. Kevin also asked me to mention this. First, around Gwaii Haanas the oil companies agreed, for the purpose of establishing a marine conservation area around the terrestrial park, to relinquish their oil and gas leases in that area. So that step has occurred and that kind of activity will not happen in that area.

In terms of other work we have been doing with the oil and gas sector through the Canadian Petroleum Producers Association, they are actually supportive. They want to know where they can and can't go. In essence, they would actually prefer to know that in marine conservation areas it's a no-go zone for them. I'm not talking about that other group, I'm talking about the Canadian Petroleum Producers Association. They're different organizations. I know that other group does not feel that way, but in our work with the Canadian Petroleum Producers Association, we worked very successfully, as well, to establish a huge protected area in the northern Rockies. They have definitely supported us in this kind of work, as well as in Alberta, in establishing protected areas where there is no industrial development.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Ms. Jessen, we would be pleased to receive your documents in reference to Mr. Bonwick's question.

Ms. Sabine Jessen: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Go ahead.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I'm certainly not supporting any particular organization, other than the fact that when we had a presentation from some aboriginal peoples from British Columbia, they were suggesting one of their concerns was the restriction of oil and gas exploration. I agree with Mr. McNamee's position that until such time as you identify it, it's all hypothetical. But if you do identify it and there is a find, then show me something that says we should restrict it and perhaps the DG might be able to—

Mr. Bruce Amos: I was just going to add a couple of ancillary comments, if I might.

On the international level, if you look at what different countries are doing in various forums in marine protected or conservation areas, one common theme is a prohibition on oil and gas or any mineral activity on the seabed. That's true in the U.S. marine sanctuaries and it's true in the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. It's the one common thing. Many of the other prohibitions discussed may vary, but that one is everywhere.

It's been the basis of our policy now for 20 years, and we would make the point that this approach has quite a broad base of support across the country. In part, it's as a result of a sense of fear and an emotional argument that people are worried about the impacts of spills and pollutants from oil and gas activities. I'm not suggesting I'm answering your question head-on about scientific data, because I'm not. I'm just making the point that for whatever reasons, it is an international standard and one that's supported across the country in terms of our consultations. That may not be the case with all industry groups.

• 1720

It's understood, too, that if there is known potential in an area, it may well be that's an area that government and other partners agree to avoid. Clearly our policy directs us, certainly in areas where the seabed is owned by the federal government, that we're obligated to do an assessment, an inventory of what might be there before a final recommendation is made.

I might make just one other illustration. People have mentioned Gwaii Haanas a number of times, and there is a proposed marine conservation area there for which four oil and gas companies have voluntarily relinquished their rights to explore on the seabed as a contribution to making that proposed marine conservation area a reality. I think that indicates a concurrence of view that this is the right way to go, and some companies are quite willing to make a contribution toward that.

Mr. Kevin McNamee: Another thing is that we didn't come prepared to take on industry on these things. We'd be prepared to also help. But to go back to Mr. Grégoire's point that these areas, in and of themselves, will not save the marine environment and the features and the processes, that it's the area outside that you have to manage around them, that's absolutely true and we've learned that with national parks.

But one thing we have learned is that a way to stimulate that broader conservation vision, that broader look out beyond these protected areas, is to use them as benchmarks. You keep them as natural as possible, you eliminate industrial activity, you minimize the human alteration, so that what you have is, in essence, a natural benchmark. When you monitor that and measure the impact of human activities outside, you get a sense that something's wrong within that broader ecosystem.

So I ask you to take Mr. Grégoire's vision and think about these places as benchmarks against which to measure the impact of human activities. If you allow oil and gas in them, you lose your benchmark and you lose that way of trying to get people to adopt a broader conservation vision based on knowing what's happening to what's natural.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Go ahead, Ms. Granskou.

Ms. Mary Granskou: I was wondering if I could ask a question of the committee at the appropriate point.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): If the committee is agreeable to that, as we are coming to a close of this meeting and we would start our third round of questioning. Is the committee agreeable to questions from the witnesses?

Mr. John Godfrey: If the witness wants to ask a question, go ahead.

Ms. Mary Granskou: It's my understanding that the committee is going to be on the road next week consulting with other parties and interests. Is that correct?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Not on this one. The committee's on the road to deal with Canadian culture, except for one meeting, I believe, out on the west coast.

Some hon. members: No.

Ms. Mary Granskou: I have just a brief supplementary question. Would the committee be amenable to suggestions of parties you might meet with related to this legislation while you are travelling?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: No, we are working with a full schedule.

Ms. Mary Granskou: Okay.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The schedule is full. We're carrying on after.

Ms. Mary Granskou: Okay.

Mr. Mark Muise: Any group could put submissions in writing, even if it's not in person. Those would be very valuable.

Ms. Mary Granskou: Wonderful. We will pursue that. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): We welcome all recommendations in terms of other organizations we should consult.

On the third round, would members make it brief. Mr. Dumas.

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Dumas: I'm afraid my question may be too lengthy, Mr. Chairman. It is addressed to Mr. McNamee. You state in your brief that title to the lands we may want to designate marine conservation areas will pose a significant problem. What solution do you propose to that particular problem?

• 1725

[English]

A witness: Do you want a short answer?

Mr. Kevin McNamee: I think that we don't have exact wording. We haven't drafted exact wording, but we think that if the bill holds onto the concept of clear title as one option to represent a marine natural region, there should also be the option of entering into cooperative agreements, whatever, that bring the different parties together. Expand your options. That would be my short answer.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): Thank you, Mr. Dumas.

Mr. Muise, Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Bélanger, do you have further questions?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): If there are not, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing today. Your deliberations certainly will be helpful for this committee as we work through the bill.

Mr. Mark Muise: Witnesses and questioners as well.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Inky Mark): I now declare the meeting adjourned.