CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 18, 1999

• 1111

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open this meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to continue the study of Bill C-48, An Act respecting marine conservation areas.

The witnesses are here. We have before us Mr. Ben Ainsworth, secretary, Ainsworth Jenkins Holdings Inc.; Mr. Bill Belsey, vice-chair, North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force; Mayor Jack Mussallem, Prince Rupert City Council; and Mr. Pat Green, Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District.

Mr. Ainsworth, we'll start with you. As we have four witnesses, and there has to be time for the members, perhaps you could confine your remarks to 10 or 15 minutes.

Mr. Ben Ainsworth (Secretary, Ainsworth Jenkins Holdings Inc.): I will try.

Thank you for granting my request, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. I'm also most grateful for the financial assistance granted to enable my appearance here.

My qualifications for presenting this brief to you start with my being a practising natural scientist, a geologist. I have more than 37 years' experience in exploration and development of minerals, and I've become aware of the mineral and hydrocarbon resources that occur beneath the surface of the oceans.

I first attended a conference and workshop on ocean mining in 1966, and my interest and understanding has been growing since then. I'm quite familiar with some of the extensive body of scientific research relating to biological and geological activity in the deep oceans.

From this understanding and my past experience in mining exploration, I am convinced that the explorers of the deep can harvest in a sustainable manner our submarine natural resources, to the great benefit of Canada and the rest of the world. The technology is largely available to convert the millions of dollars that have already been expended in research into an enormous economic opportunity that will have more environmental benefits than deficits.

• 1115

I believe Bill C-48 will result in the alienation of the oceans, essentially, preventing this industrial activity. The impact of widespread alienation of crown lands in British Columbia as protected areas and parks has been a major cause of the crash in mineral exploration activity. The use of the procedure promoted in the bill, which we describe as an Order in Council, to enable the permanent exclusion of private persons is not democratic, in my view.

In British Columbia we have experienced a cancerous growth of land alienations over the last few years, sponsored by well-funded, vocal minorities of “enviro-elitists”.

I don't claim at this time to stand officially for any particular group. In fact, in trying to find out more about the bill from my colleagues in Vancouver, I could find not one person in the mining industry organizations who actually knew about Bill C-48.

I am a member of the B.C. and Yukon chambers of mines, the B.C. Association of Professional Engineers, and a fellow of the Geological Society in London.

In early 1998, I was the first person—ever, I believe—to make application for mineral title over the very large mineral deposits within the Canadian economic exclusion zone in Pacific waters. These areas were subsequently proposed to be designated as marine protected areas under the Fisheries Act.

The loud silence from the mining industry about the marine protected areas' alienation is for me clear evidence that it was either not understood well by the industry—it's just a fisheries matter, perhaps—or it was just missed in the sea of other misfortunes in which the mining industry has recently had to swim.

Bill C-48, leading to the Marine Conservation Areas Act, will have a severely negative impact on the future economy of British Columbia and Canada. The regionally affected stakeholders appear to have little knowledge of Bill C-48, as I mentioned, or of the potential economic importance of the natural resources that will be alienated by the application of the bill.

The fact that I was the first person to try to obtain title for the mineral deposits suggests that the idea of harvesting these enormous resources has not been more than a wishful thought in Vancouver's mining-oriented community. I declare my personal interest in trying to stop the alienation of these resources on that basis.

I believe few witnesses to the committee hearings on Bill C-48 will come from the mining industry. Such witnesses might have a much broader view of the total impact of things than perhaps some of the other witnesses present, who are coming from the conservation and environmental aspect.

I support for the future benefit of all Canadians the good stewardship and harvesting of our natural resources, both mineral and biological. Multidisciplinary research will proceed more rapidly if private sector exploration is permitted, and both biological and earth sciences stand to gain much by this.

I'll take it as fact that the members of the committee have had some opportunity to become familiar with the natural resources that Bill C-48 will alienate forever. What may not have been presented clearly is the magnitude of the economic opportunity, and by deduction, the magnitude of the economic loss if the alienations are executed.

There are three main groups of natural resources in our Pacific Ocean—the biota, or living; energy in the form of heat and hydrocarbons, which are basically the dead biota; and the metallic and non-metallic minerals.

My initial interest in the mineral potentials of the Canadian Pacific economic exclusion zone came from work done on the manganese nodules and from the understanding I've obtained through the brilliant research of such people as Drs. Jim Franklin, Wayne Goodfellow, Ian Jonasson, Suzanne Paradis of the Geological Survey of Canada, Steve Scott, geologist at the University of Toronto, and Verena Tunnicliffe of the University of Victoria, who has contributed enormously in biological studies in the area.

There are many others in Canada, and other countries. My apologies to those I haven't cited, but I do intend to keep this short.

• 1120

The research work I followed related mainly to the special environments, geological and biological, that exist around the areas of hot vents, or hot springs, on the ocean floors. The vents or hot springs occur in thousands of sites on the ocean floors of the world, and more are being discovered every year.

I have an old list, from 1994, of some 212 sites of hydrothermal activity and assorted mineral deposits, which was reported as an index to Geological Survey of Canada open file map 2915c.

That's not to say that all these sites are within Canadian waters but to indicate that in a global sense, there are a lot of these things.

We can actually make an analogy with the terrestrial hot springs in volcanic centres. Since oceans cover a very much larger part of the surface of our globe than lands, it's reasonable to project that we will locate a comparably larger number of sites.

Just like individual beings, each site has its special characteristics and general similarities with other sites. Just like volcanic centres and hot springs, they are intermittent and ephemeral in their activity. They are not permanent ecosystems.

Canadian research carried out in the Endeavour hot vents area, and other Canadian EEZ sites, has allowed us to learn that the impressive organ-pipe-like tubes of sulphide minerals that conform at the vents can be broken by earthquake activity. They can also be broken by natural chemical erosion, as the pipes grow and break, grow and break, or by scientists breaking off pieces to bring them to the surface for further investigation and perhaps a little research grant promotion activity.

Extensive drilling in the vent areas has resulted in the formation of new vents. The plumbing was improved, so the hot springs were able to find new routes to the surface.

The biota, as evidenced in a visit a year later, apparently colonized these new vents, suggesting that we could actually promote more extensive growth of the exotic biota associated with the toxic hot brews in the vent areas.

I will to read you a short piece from an article in Scientific American last year, written by Binns and Dekker. It reads:

A number of observations suggest that the environmental effects of mining this habitat may not be especially worrisome.

The fauna in question normally tolerate highly acidic waters containing sulfur, thallium, arsenic and mercury. So the release of these substances from mining into the surrounding water should not harm the local biota. Indeed, when the venting of hot water carrying these seemingly toxic elements ceases, the colonies either die or migrate to a more active site. What is more, these vent creatures live quite happily in conditions in which the sea water is thick with particulate smoke as well as clouds of dead and partly mineralized bacteria. And they are perfectly capable of surviving the strong earthquakes that repeatedly disrupt these volcanic fields, snapping tall chimneys like matchsticks and raising tons of sediment into suspension.

Although the vent communities appear quite resilient, great care is still warranted. One cautious strategy would be to mine progressively up-current, selecting sites where the flow would carry clouds of fine particles and other mining debris away from the intact deposit. In this way, if only part of the area is mined, the rest of the deposit and its fauna will remain undisturbed. The creatures living there could then recolonize nearby mined-out areas that were still actively venting.

My personal interest was nudged into higher gear when I read the 1988 paper of Drs. Wayne Goodfellow and Jan Peter. This paper indicated actual dimensions and potential grades of mineralization in a body in the Middle Valley, about 290 kilometres off the coast of Vancouver Island.

These dimensions and grades indicated that it was big enough, and had enough metal in it, to be of economic interest. It was now worth considering the possibility of trying to develop some means of harvesting this continually growing source of metal.

My knowledge of the deposits and the technology available allows me to be certain that the future evaluation of the metal potential could be by private sector funding if the future harvesting of the deposit is permitted.

A gross metal value of perhaps over $1 billion is represented in what was found by the Geological Survey of Canada. Adjacent sulphide mounds could add to this, raising the gross value to several billions of dollars.

• 1125

Of course, the private sector entity that might harvest these deposits wouldn't benefit to the total amount of the gross values, but the Canadian government potentially would have a taxable stream of income that would come quite a bit closer to the gross values indicated.

The experience gained from harvesting these deposits would keep Canada at the cutting edge of mining and marine technology, which in turn will lead to important opportunities. The economic value of the Middle Valley vents is so unusually high that its alienation in a marine park or other exclusion would clearly be a mismanagement of our natural resources, in my view.

The biota are something of special interest as well. I'm not a biologist per se, but I do understand a fair bit about biological systems.

The biota that are supported by the hot vents are fascinating for many reasons. They are aliens on earth, in a sense. The live in an extraordinarily poisonous ecosystem with extraordinary heat ranges that vary enormously and irregularly with time. This is not the place to use the term “delicate ecosystem”.

The species of animals and plants that cluster around the hot spot formed by the vents are typically found at other vent sites. This is remarkable, because the vents are separated by hundreds of kilometres of very cold water that should not support the biota, which are used to the warm spots.

When we know that intermittent, natural interruptions of vent activity can cause huge temperature changes and total loss of energy-rich nutrient, fatal to some or all of the inhabitants, the survival of the biota is even more wonderful. These tough conditions for survival also point to the certainty that reasonable care could allow for harvesting of their host environment with less risk to the biota than is presented by their natural environment.

The biota do offer an extraordinary chemistry and structure for us to examine. There's a possibility that life on earth may have started in the chemical soup related to vent systems. The recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Anaheim this year and several contemporary publications attest to the interest of the scientific community to explore this further. The ability to investigate the vents and their biota with greater access can only help us unlock the secrets.

We already know of some of the capabilities of the biota. They have great potential for helping us above the surface of the oceans. The extreme physicochemical conditions in which the vent populations live and reproduce encourage one to believe that a whole range of unknown chemicals and chemical reactions may be discovered by future research. Such further research will be accelerated if such economic activity as the harvesting of the vent minerals is encouraged.

The Chairman: Mr. Ainsworth, can you summarize the rest of your brief?

Mr. Ben Ainsworth: Certainly.

There are several other spin-offs that will have great potential for being of benefit to Canada and to the world at large. One of them relates to the possible delivery to the surface of nutrients from the sea floor. Our earlier work with manganese nodules indicated that we would stimulate a plankton bloom if we didn't return it to the bottom. In the Antarctic Ocean at the moment, the British are currently seeding the ocean with iron sulphate in order to create a sink for carbon dioxide as part of a notion that this might assist in the problems related to global warming. My basic thesis is that the resources we have on the ocean floor are so enormous we shouldn't lock them up.

The third set of resources, the energy, relates to methane hydrates as possible replacements for our conventional hydrocarbons on the surface. These methane hydrates are most likely to be in highest concentrations where highest biological activity has been, and that would be close to where these hot vents are.

In closing, I'd like to make a couple of comments on the language of Bill C-48.

It starts its preamble with reference to the precautionary principle. If we inspect the interpretation of the precautionary principle, or PP, we find it basically exhorts us to do nothing unless we are sure there will be no deficits from actions that could derive benefits.

Columbus would never have left port if constrained by this principle. We would never embark on an airplane to soar en route to Ottawa with ozone-eating exhaust gases, injected right into the base of the stratosphere, if we really believed in the PP.

• 1130

In fact, it's my view that the PP is a thing of convenience for the most scurrilous of our scientists and environmentalists. It's never used to say that we should stop further immigration to Canada so that we might have a chance of meeting the reductions in global warming gases, as agreed to in the Kyoto protocol. It's never used to say that we should stop flying American rafters in huge, howling helicopters over the Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Park in British Columbia, because they might disturb the cuddly grizzly bears.

Instead, it's used like a blackjack to distract us when the perpetrator wishes to stop the logical thought processes with a language image that is undeniably as evocative and emotional as motherhood, while it hides the cruel deficits that can come with motherhood.

The Heidelberg appeal to the heads of state and governments in 1992 clearly pointed out the fallacy of the precautionary principle. Signed by some 62 Nobel laureates and 4,000 other scientists from 102 countries, the appeal contends that a natural state, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist, and probably never has existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere, insofar as humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing nature for its needs, and not the reverse.

The greatest evils that stalk our earth are ignorance and oppression, not science and technology and industry, whose instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by humanity, by itself and for itself, overcoming major problems like overpopulation, starvation, and worldwide diseases.

The adoption of the precautionary principle to alienate the future wealth of our nation will not allow the responsible use of our natural resources. There is already massive regulation of the environment in Canada to protect the sustainable use of Canadian territories on land and sea. This regulation is more than adequate to protect the special flora and fauna that are much of the concern behind Bill C-48.

The language of Bill C-48 is uncompromising. The alienations proposed will be forever. Worse, it's proposed in the bill that the enormous impact of such alienations can be expanded by Order in Council, without reference to democratic review or external input. There is an urgent need here to apply the precautionary principle touted in the preamble to Bill C-48 to prevent an irreversible taking from our natural resource basket. Our decision-making should be based on good science to make good laws.

Thank you for your patient consideration of my testimony. I beg no forgiveness for making a passionate plea to keep open the options for future generations so that they may enjoy the sustainable harvesting of our natural resources.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Belsey.

Mr. Bill Belsey (Vice-Chairman, North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force recognizes Bill C-48 as an important and valuable overall objective. The overall aim of this bill itself is not being questioned by the task force. We are fully in favour of marine conservation. However, the North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force is very concerned about three specific aspects of Bill C-48—namely, the exclusion of drilling, the consultation process, and the discrepancies between the policy and the bill.

I trust you have a copy of the paper submitted earlier, which details some of those concerns, but as I sit before you, let me reconfirm our position.

With regard to the exclusion of drilling, the North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force is concerned mainly that Bill C-48, as presently drafted, would cut off all—and I do emphasize “all”—opportunity for future resource exploration in the designated marine conservation areas. This bill could stifle offshore exploration and development around conservation areas.

There are provisions in this bill to shut down existing industries if it is determined that an industry is adversely affecting the flora and fauna of any area subsequently brought in under the protection of this bill. This is wrong.

• 1135

My second concern is the lack of a consultation process that specifically includes the people and the communities most affected by this legislation. I have yet to find anyone who clearly understood that the Gwaii Haanas marine park was to be included under the limiting, exclusion-type legislation we find in Bill C-48.

I had the opportunity to take part in a radio talk show, Prince Rupert Talks Live. Callers were amazed to find out about the far-reaching powers of this bill. Many were shocked to find out about the lack of local input into such an important piece of legislation. It is becoming all too commonplace to see unilateral decisions being imposed on rural communities with little or no concern about the adverse effect on these rural communities. Conservation and our environment are paramount in our minds. You must be cognizant of our views and our concerns when you consider this bill.

Last, let me draw your attention to a published policy paper, referred to by Parks Canada as National Marine Conservation Area Policy. Read it. You, like everyone else who has read this paper, will get a warm, fuzzy feeling about a make-believe underwater world, someplace where Walt Disney would love to film the sequel to The Little Mermaid, where the marine flora and fauna abound.

The reality is that you're creating a place where only a select few may ever venture and appreciate.

When you take a look and compare the policy paper with the bill, it's incredible the differences you'll find. In the bill we talk about search and seizure; wardens and enforcement officers with arms; arrest and seizure without warrant; punishment and fines of up to $0.5 million; the powers of the ministry; and mitigation for environmental damage. None of that is covered in the policy paper.

The task force opposes proceeding further with Bill C-48 without seeking further consultation on these important issues. Get the scientific facts on gas and oil drilling and exploration. Consult with the people in the communities most affected by this bill, and insist that this bill be brought more in line with the public policy paper.

The task force urges the government to amend Bill C-48 to provide for offshore oil and gas exploration within the designated marine conservation areas.

The task force urges the government to amend Bill C-48 to include a clear consultation process that necessitates that local support must be obtained before any area becomes part of a national marine conservation park.

The task force urges the government to insist that the authors of this ill-conceived bill are made to bring it in line with the issues addressed in the policy paper.

I want to thank this group for the opportunity to appear before you, and for the finances that have been provided.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Belsey.

Mayor Mussallem.

• 1140

Mr. Jack Mussallem (Mayor, Prince Rupert): Thank you, and good morning.

As mayor of the city of Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and vice-chairman of the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District, I must tell you that the majority of the residents of the north coast are opposed to Bill C-48.

I believe you've already received a written brief from a neighbouring community, the District of Kitimat, which is just outside of the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District and the Kitimat-Stikine Regional District. They also, as a coastal community, are opposed to the bill.

We do not see the necessity of the Marine Conservation Areas Act. Our area is very sparsely populated within the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District. We have a population of 24,000 people, and in the city of Prince Rupert itself, we have a population of about 16,000 to 18,000 people. Our area is very rugged, and we don't have a lot of activity that would necessitate this kind of legislation.

Economically, people are having a very hard time, and Bill C-48 imposes an additional burden on residents. A permit process under the bill will only create more bureaucracy for people, and our residents believe they will not be served well by this process.

Further, there are concerns about marine protected areas that could be established to the detriment of existing users and against traditional and historical uses. I'll point out to you that as far as members of the fishing community are concerned—trollers, gillnetters and seiners—they all fish adjacent to the foreshore areas. Seiners in fact use the shoreline to establish beach lines with which to make their sets.

Our concern is that the minister could, without thorough consultation, go ahead and designate certain areas of the coastline as protected areas, which would severely inhibit people's ability to make a living.

With the current economic downturn in British Columbia, there are two areas that are the hardest hit, where the residents are suffering the greatest. Those areas are both coastal areas—the Nanaimo Regional District and the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District.

Bill C-48 is not seen as assisting to create economic opportunity. Coastal residents, those I represent, are trying to make a living, and they need to be consulted. In fact, this bill needs more review, discussion, and further consultation with coastal users in British Columbia. Many people see this bill as a further infringement on their livelihoods.

At this point I would take the opportunity to say to the committee that although I know you've been to Vancouver and I know you've been to Prince Rupert, I think you should revisit the west coast. I understand you're going to be in Vancouver next Thursday. I would ask you to go further, and go into such communities as Nanaimo, Campbell River, Alert Bay, Port Hardy, Powell River, Kitimat, Masset in the Queen Charlotte Islands, and Prince Rupert so that people will really have a good understanding of what you're trying to do, and you will certainly hear their concerns first-hand.

West coast residents are not aware of any areas that require conservation on the north coast. There is only consideration of an extension of South Moresby Park on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Without adequate consultation on Bill C-48, the federal government has made north coast residents very suspicious. The park mentioned was created without the need for the proposed legislation.

Generally, people are not opposed to the idea of marine parks, but the way the government is trying to proceed with this bill leads us to question the somewhat nebulous and uncertain nature of it in its current form. It is not acceptable that fishing would only be permitted by specific licence and that recreational use would only be permitted under specific authorization and permit.

I can tell you right now that the fishing industry on the west coast of Canada is highly regulated through a licensing process and it has created a lot of problems. That process is not one that works well.

Recreational use in our part of the world, weather permitting, is barely four months of the year, from mid-May to mid-September. It's also of great concern that the government would consider marine protected areas without consultation of residents in specific areas. The question that has to be asked is how people will be compensated if their livelihood is disrupted or destroyed.

• 1145

Again, I'll give you an example from the commercial fishing industry. Commercial fishermen can no longer fish off Langara Island—referred to as “North Island”—off the Queen Charlotte Islands, as it is utilized by commercial sport-fishing lodges hosting recreational fishermen.

Although we are opposed to this bill, if the federal government wishes to proceed at all, first they need to consult with those who work the coast for their livelihoods. Subsequently, a steering committee needs to be established with stakeholders, aboriginal and non-aboriginal representatives from the north coast, the central coast, and the south coast of British Columbia, as part of a specific area consultation and pre-approval process.

I can tell you, I am involved with Western Diversification, for instance, in its dispersal of funds—that is, the $18 million of the $100 million that has come into the west coast to help people who have been thrown out of the west coast salmon fishing industry.

You need to give those representatives time to advise their residents about any initiatives that may be a consideration under Bill C-48. The process should also involve local government along the west coast. By that, I refer to the regional district form of government. The coastal regional districts have within their boundaries the areas the bill would be concerned with, and have locally elected representatives from those specific areas.

My last comment, Mr. Chairman, is that any process and any decision-making must allow for local input and interaction from area residents.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment and for providing the funding so that I could appear on behalf of the people I represent.

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

Mr. Green.

Mr. Pat Green (Representative, Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District): Thank you for allowing me to be here today, and for helping to help defray the costs.

I have been earning money on the coast of British Columbia since I was 14 years old. I started as chief cook and deckhand of a patrol boat in the summer months between school. I'm 56 years old now. I've been involved in the industry all my working life, as a fisherman and later running a large processing company. I have also been president of a small fishermen's union.

I was encouraged to get involved in policy areas of regulation in terms of what's happening in the fishing grounds by an old friend, and very good former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Roméo LeBlanc, who warned me to be vigilant against the bureaucrats, to watch out for the bureaucrats, that they don't do little end runs in empire building.

I see Bill C-48 clearly as empire building by bureaucrats. It's a real bureaucrat's bill, with all kinds of overlap with the authority the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has now. The concept of marine protected areas has some merit, but the process is significantly flawed.

I have discussions sometimes about what we refer to as the “shape of the box”, or “bowl”. When someone sets up a process and they want a certain product to come out, they engineer the process that way.

When we first got wind of this marine protected area initiative a year and a half ago, or whenever it was, there were two workshop seminars in British Columbia. One was held in Prince Rupert and the other was held down on Vancouver Island.

At the one in Prince Rupert, which has been my backyard all my life, the invited guests were what we refer to as the “granola cookies of the green guard”. Industry was not invited. People earning a livelihood were not invited. We managed to get in. We sort of crashed the party, if you will, and made a contribution.

• 1150

I am an elected member of Prince Rupert city council and sit on the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District, sharing discussions with such diverse communities as Masset, Old Masset, Port Clements, Tlell, Skidegate, Queen Charlotte City, Sandspit, Hartley Bay, Kitkatlah, Oona River, Hunts Inlet, Metlakatla, Port Simpson, Port Edward, and Prince Rupert.

These are all small coastal communities, with Prince Rupert being the largest. We are suffering mightily through the policies created in what we out here refer to as “never-never land”.

Many people in Ottawa think we're in the remote part of the land out there, and I guess we are, but I guess the reverse is true. We think this area here is very remote from reality—what we call “ground-truthing”.

In Bill C-48 they talk about providing opportunities within marine conservation areas for the ecologically sustainable use of marine resources for the lasting benefit of coastal communities. What I see in here is harmful for coastal communities.

Going over the material, over and over again, I see arguments being made that are quite suitable arguments to make if they're referring to the Gulf of Georgia and the Gulf Islands, which are part of it, but not to the north coast. We are not experiencing these identified problems, and we are certainly fearful that this legislation will allow the bureaucrats to create empires and run away.

For example, we are told that in South Moresby park, or Gwaii Haanas, whatever you want to call it, they want to put a 10-kilometre bubble around the park. Within that area there is extensive groundfish harvesting, particularly on the west coast of the Charlottes, but on the east coast as well.

As you probably know, on the west coast of the Charlottes, there is just about no continental shelf—it drops off like that—and there are huge groundfish stocks managed very well by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and harvested at a very conservative level.

They talk in here, in this other marine protected areas paper, about 36 species of rockfish. A significant number of those rockfish were not discovered by marine biologists. They were discovered by fishermen, commercial fishermen, and shown to biologists to help create their knowledge.

For example, quillback and some of the other species have to be harvested at a very conservative rate. They have a successful recruitment of the fisheries—that is, they come in and are able to grow up only once every 26 years. That requires a combination of water temperature, marine creatures for them to feed on, wind, tide—a whole pile of variations. Giving a protected area isn't going to do anything for that. All kinds of other factors are critical to that. On average, you get a recruitment of that fishery once every 26 years.

As a matter of fact, on roughy species and these quillback, the harvesting that is going on is on two recruitments. On average it's every 26 years, but it could be 50 years before you get a successful recruitment.

So we are harvesting and are being managed in a very good fashion by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

• 1155

As a matter of fact, until recently, when the previous administration in Ottawa started to interfere politically with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the west coast of British Columbia, we've had world-class fisheries management. As a matter of fact, for rockfish, which a lot of this goes on about, they identified all kinds of stuff. These creatures are very long-lived. They quite often live to 85 or 100 years.

At any rate, it supports groundfish activity and longline activity, principally halibut fisheries, which have been managed by the International Halibut Commission in a very successful manner for well over 50 years. It doesn't need any rejigging in terms of the populations. The populations are going up, not down.

There are salmon fisheries going on within that South Moresby area, both seine and gill net. There are dive fisheries for geoduck and for sea urchin. There are all kinds of activities there. We cannot afford to be shut down out of these areas, where we have sustainable, properly managed fisheries.

Creation of that park down there has killed Sandspit. I encourage you folks to go over and look at Sandspit, a dying community, where Parks Canada suggested logging would be replaced by tourism and then put a huge restriction on the number of people allowed in there, just a fraction of what had been suggested. There is no economic benefit in that particular area.

There has been no economic impact analysis. Before anything is done, we need to have an economic analysis. I encourage you to question the science.

The gentleman down here talked about some people manipulating the science. Let me give you a little ground-truth issue again, just to give you a flavour of what happens.

With regard to North Pacific cod, which is something the groundfishermen catch at Hecate Strait, the numbers are down this year. They fluctuate all the time, but the numbers are down this year and they are thinking about putting a total closure on Pacific cod. This is a fast-regrowing species.

I checked with the fishermen. When they were doing their analysis—in British Columbia, fishermen on the trawlers have an observer aboard every boat, paid for out of the ass pocket of fishermen—the observer taking the scientific data, doing the stuff that Fisheries and Oceans was doing before, split a deck box full of, for example, cod, throwing all the small ones back, saying to the fishermen, “We're just looking at the big ones, and we're not counting the small ones.”

Well, okay; they were given just the big ones. As well, the net sizes on these trawlers are already big to allow for the escapement of small fish.

When the scientific information flowing from this came out, they said, “We need to close this, because we couldn't find any juveniles.” Sure they couldn't find any juveniles; they'd tossed them out in the study.

So you need to be very careful—again, shape of the box.

I don't want to bore you too much, but I'll give you another little one. We're trying to build a ramp to launch small vessels for recreation tourism. We had an official who was a little bit difficult. In order to fix this ramp and make it effective for people to use, a boulder the width of about two of these tables and about this high needed to be moved. We got permission to move it, but it had to go back in the same location. The timing was very important, because this fellow didn't want it to be moved when sand fleas were smolting.

When in fact the work was done and the boulder was put back in the same direction, he complained that it had been rotated a little bit, and the compass access had been changed.

We're going through all this. It's not as though what is going on in our industry and what we're dealing with is out of control, or there's damage being done; to the contrary.

• 1200

The most important thing that came out of the conference in Prince Rupert... I can't speak to the one down south—I wasn't there—but I get very nervous about note-takers. I never appreciated the power of the recording secretary until I met a past master with one of our organizations. He was very good at that.

At any rate, the theme that came up over and over again, and the strongest recommendation that came out of that workshop, was that it should be a bottom-up process—not top-down, bottom-up—and local governments should be initiating it.

So what people are saying—all the users, including the granola cookies who were there—is that sensitive areas, areas with special needs, should be identified locally, not by a minister.

We all know it's not the minister in this case. She doesn't go out. It's the bureaucrats doing it.

My friend down the table talked about oil and gas. There appears to be a decades-old bogeyman about oil and gas, and fear of problems with drilling. Oil and gas, with modern standards, remains a very safe activity.

As a long-standing fisherman, I have absolutely no qualms about having oil and gas drilling going on in the midst of fishing grounds that I and my friends depend upon. We need these opportunities for development on the north coast.

The others have commented on some of the other points. I won't go into them and be repetitive about the Draconian half-million dollar fines, arrests without warrants, and all that. It's trying to drive in a thumbtack with a hammer. We don't need it and we don't want it.

I really encourage you guys to have another look. People don't understand this process that's going on. I have been involved, for more years than I like to think, in advisory processes, and one of the things that has always encouraged me is being able to speak to the standing committee, because the buck very often stops here.

I hope you folks will take a look and say, okay, maybe we'd better have another look at this and go and talk to the people affected.

Thank you for the opportunity.

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

We'll open the meeting to questions, first from Mr. Mark.

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

If I may, in the first round I'll ask one question and then defer the rest of my time to Mr. White.

First, let me welcome the witnesses and thank them for taking the time to come here today. It's a long way from the west coast.

Mr. Ainsworth, from your presentation it's quite obvious and evident that you believe enacting Bill C-48 will result in alienation of natural resources. My question is, isn't it likely that our government would administer the act wisely for the benefit of all Canadians?

Mr. Ben Ainsworth: The problem, Mr. Mark, is that our government doesn't know what we have out there at the moment. The second problem is that, in our experience in British Columbia, the goalposts keep moving. There's a target set for a certain area to be alienated. There are calls for consultation between mining industry and other stakeholders, and the mining industry is not listened to.

Recently there was a park made in northeastern British Columbia, out of Fort Nelson. It covers areas of great potential metal deposits. It's an area in which I actually worked, did exploration and drilled holes in the ground. It is now called a pristine wilderness. It's interesting that our mining exploration activity is so awful that this area can now be called a pristine wilderness.

We have had a growth in parks in British Columbia, covering areas of high mineral potential without regard to the resources that are being locked up. I'm very concerned that the same thing could happen in the oceans.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

I'll defer to Mr. White.

The Chairman: Mr. White.

• 1205

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is also to Mr. Ainsworth.

I heard Mayor Mussallem and Mr. Belsey talk about the lack of consultation in their area, an area that will be greatly affected by the passage of this bill.

I have in front of me a letter that was written by the International Council on Metals and the Environment. It was on an unrelated topic, but they do mention in their letter that they believe this:

A more flexible, multi-disciplinary approach to mining and protected areas could be more effective in furthering biodiversity conservation as well as the broader sustainable development objectives of society.

So the International Council on Metals and the Environment, which is based here in Ottawa, also seems to be taking a similar thrust to what you're saying, if I understood you right, that mining shouldn't be totally excluded. They have an environmental responsibility, but they shouldn't be totally excluded from making some type of proposal or what have you. I ask you, then, to confirm that this is the thrust of your presentation.

As well, do you know whether the International Council on Metals and the Environment was consulted? Were people in your industry consulted? Because that's the message I hear from the others. Was consultation done in your area?

Mr. Ben Ainsworth: I visited with the International Council on Metals and the Environment this morning, actually, and they had not heard of this until I made the phone call to set up the meeting with them last week.

To my knowledge, in western Canada in the industry, I'm the only person I've found who knows Bill C-48 in any way, shape or form. It's interesting to note as well that I don't see anybody from the Maritimes here on the witness stand. I don't know if that reflects the selection of witnesses at all, but I know there is concern in the Maritimes for the use of mineral potential in the offshore environment.

Mr. Ted White: I see.

The Chairman: Mr. Ainsworth, just as a point of order, we have invited people from right across Canada in affected areas. They appear on different days, of course. They aren't here today, but I can assure you that people from the east are there.

Mr. Ben Ainsworth: Thank you.

Mr. Ted White: Just to follow on that, I heard you say, Mr. Green, that you didn't mind the idea of oil and gas exploration going on in the fishing grounds that you make your living out of. Would the same opinion apply to the mining industry that Mr. Ainsworth represents? Does it disturb you that there could be some undersea mining activity going on?

Tied in with that, do you feel there hasn't been enough consideration given to how many departments this bill overlaps? I mean, it seems to me it's Fisheries, Natural Resources, and there are aboriginal considerations here.

The first focus, then, is on concern about mining in the waters, and two, whether you feel there should be more interaction between the various departments on this.

Mr. Pat Green: There's very little activity going on in the areas of these vents. There is some activity that I know of out in some of the seamounts, but it's primarily on travelling stocks, squid fisheries, and some rockfisheries on the seamounts. It's not down at the bottom. So that's not a problem.

Yes, there is a multitude of agencies. I see this overlapping the authority of Fisheries and Oceans, although I see in the bill that stuff can be done with the concurrence of the minister. These things are time bombs, depending on who the ministers are. With respect, sometimes we have very strong, vigilant ministers, but sometimes ministers are overly swayed by their bureaucrats. So I'm very concerned about that.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): I just wanted to follow up on the statement that, “We're not necessarily opposed to marine conservation areas.” I think there's a common thread there, that with the bill as drafted, it's just that there are some concerns around consultation, the issue of precautionary principle in terms of the mining industry, or the scientific data.

On the west coast, which is specifically the region represented here, if the conservation area act brought the understanding between the DFO's responsibilities and this act's responsibilities... Is that your wish? Instead of bureaucracies conflicting with each other, and having the producers and the industry users caught in between two bureaucracies, is there something here that gives some light of hope, or is this something we should totally throw out and redraft?

• 1210

The Chairman: You're addressing your question to...

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe all of them concurred that conservation areas on the west coast serve a purpose, that of the protection of biodiversity for future generations. I don't think anybody's against that. That's what this bill says, that—

The Chairman: I know, but are you addressing your question to a particular person?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I think all of them should have an opportunity to—

The Chairman: In which case, if you could make your replies concise, the four of you can answer, starting with Mr. Green.

Mr. Pat Green: It's area specific. We don't really need any green protected areas on most parts of the coast. I think in the Gulf of Georgia, and perhaps in San Juan, it's not a bad idea. It's small areas on the north coast, unique systems, perhaps some estuaries, but the idea of the huge areas being contemplated—for example, at South Moresby—is, in my mind, absolutely crazy. It will have a devastating effect on coastal communities that have already been hit hard.

The Chairman: Do you want to comment?

Mr. Bill Belsey: Yes.

With regard to the gas and oil task force, we do not have any problems with setting up marine conservation. All we're asking is, why do they specifically state in the bill that resource extraction and development cannot go on within a park? That's the problem we have. We feel it can safely go on, and we would like the bill to reflect that.

The Chairman: Mayor Mussallem.

Mr. Jack Mussallem: In my presentation I said that the people I represent are not opposed to the idea of marine protected areas, but let's identify some areas, let's consult about those areas, and let's be very specific rather than having a bill that blankets the whole coast.

The Chairman: Mr. Ainsworth.

Mr. Ben Ainsworth: I very much echo Mr. Belsey's comments on the matter. My focus is in very much deeper waters than I think we look at generally. It's my appreciation that marine protected areas are well discussed under the Fisheries Act. I would think this makes Bill C-48 superfluous.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

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

Welcome to our guests. I find this quite interesting. It's important to get a feel for not just those concerned with conservation but also those who live in the communities affected by this.

Monsieur Laliberte asked the question I was looking for, and I thank you for that answer.

Someone mentioned that there is probably more opposition to MCAs than we know of. Do you feel that's so, and if you do, how do you come to that conclusion?

Mr. Ainsworth or Mr. Green.

Mr. Pat Green: Speaking for myself, virtually everybody I've spoken to had no knowledge this was going on and were very alarmed that a marine protected area might be put in place in an area where they are currently enjoying the use of the coastal waters to earn a living. They felt there's been absolutely no consultation.

I say to you that the consultation has been very limited. As a matter of fact, they tried to exclude the user groups. I'm talking about recreational and commercial fisherman.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

Mr. Ben Ainsworth: As I mentioned, I have not been able to find anybody in Vancouver in the mining industry who even knows Bill C-48. When I've talked to people and mentioned it and raised the whole question of lost resources, alienated resources, the response, unfortunately, tends to be something along the lines of, well, that's it, isn't it? It's gone. It's a done deal.

We've been so hard hammered in the west, in the mining industry, that something like this is just another rock being thrown at the wall.

• 1215

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Ainsworth, have you talked with your associates or counterparts in other parts of Canada, and if so, what are their feelings on this? I'm thinking about the east coast and the northern areas where there are coastal communities.

Mr. Ben Ainsworth: No, I haven't actually had an opportunity to do that yet. I have talked briefly with some friends in Toronto, and they knew nothing about it. Ontario is not necessarily the most oceanward-looking province, so that's understandable.

I have talked to some of the people involved in the Department of Mines and Energy in Newfoundland, and the deputy minister did actually know of Bill C-48 but hadn't gone into it in any great detail.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

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

Thanks very much, gentlemen, for coming in on your long trip today and providing some information. Most of my questions I'll address to Mr. Mussallem and to the two gentlemen from the mining sector as well.

One of the common themes—and I addressed it yesterday—is that of economic concern, or what the potential economic impacts are. Whether we have so-called environmentalists sitting at the table or whether we have people who potentially—and I do say “potentially”—could be harmed by the enactment of this legislation as it stands today, they also suggest that we do have a responsibility to ensure that there are safeguards in there to take into consideration economic and cultural impacts, whether it be fishing for people who have been fishing the coastal regions for centuries or whether it be potential economic impacts for small villages and communities along the coast from a mining perspective.

There seems to be a consensus on that, but I'm looking for perhaps some provision of solutions, and how you feel that might take place.

One of the things I read yesterday was the North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force presentation, after which I addressed some questions to the various so-called environmentalist organizations presenting yesterday with regard to helping me justify why in fact we should have some exclusionary clause in there that simply embargoes the oil and gas exploration or the mining industry.

I didn't want them to simply provide an opinion, saying that it seems to fit within the common theme of environmental protection, or that other jurisdictions do it throughout the world, or that it falls in line with the vision of an environmental protection approach. But I received no facts, no substance, no reasons why—for example, these are the types of negative impacts created by oil and gas exploration, or this is the type of negative impact created from mining on or under the ocean bed.

Those are the kinds of questions I was putting to them, and I put the same thing to you.

In your report, you've supplied us with substantial fact, outlining the percentage of impact from hydrocarbon spills in the oceans. You're somewhere around 1.7% to 2%, depending on what statistics or facts you read. You provided some information further to that on the fact that the stuff disappears just about as quickly as it appears.

I'm wondering if you might build on that for a few minutes—a short few minutes, because I don't have much time.

To Jack, I think your comments are very appropriate with respect to the fact that we need to make sure there's an approach where there's community buy-in and not community enforcement, and that there has to be an opportunity for the communities to have their say. Certainly this is one opportunity afforded to them by having both you and Councillor Green in attendance today.

There are other mechanisms available to you, and to community organizations right up and down the coast, to present. The chair very clearly states that he accepts, on behalf of the committee, written submissions, and disperses them from whomever they may be sent. So that's certainly one way.

• 1220

There's also certainly the opportunity to have your members of Parliament bring forward their positions on a regular basis rather than just on an individual basis.

So there are lots of mechanisms in place there. It's more difficult for us to simply pick up, with our schedule, and try to hit a dozen coastal communities when in fact we have such a busy schedule.

I would encourage you to talk to your stakeholders out on the coastal regions. Encourage them to read the bill, first of all, so that they have a thorough understanding of it rather than taking highlights or clauses out, and to submit their positions on it and what changes they would envision being positive. So there's an opportunity there.

From the gas standpoint, perhaps you can build on some of the facts you've presented, and further follow it up with some substantive reports that would endorse your statements with regard to the environmental impacts of oil and gas exploration, or mining and implications.

Mr. Jack Mussallem: With regard to oil and gas, if you want to know the effects of spilt oil, which I think is what environmentalists are most concerned about, this month's issue of National Geographic has an excellent article on the long-term effects of the oil spilt in the Alaskan waters of Prince William Sound.

It's a very good article. It explains that, yes, there are spills, but the amount of spills that come from oil and gas drilling is minimal compared with what is spilt from tanker traffic. They've addressed very well the result of that tanker spill. It's interesting to read what has returned, what has come back, and the extent it's come back.

The impact in the long term is minimal; in the short term, who knows?

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I just wanted to clear the air a bit on the consultation because of the questions raised by one of the colleagues opposite.

I would point out that at the start of these hearings, Madam Tremblay from the Bloc had asked that the government table the list of groups to which the policy booklet you referred to had been sent. We have that in front of us, and I'd just like to flag a couple, just so you know.

For instance, in terms of the government in B.C., the Government of B.C. and various departments were absolutely aware of this.

In terms of the fishing and aquaculture industry, about 25 or so groups in B.C. were aware of this, including the Underwater Council of B.C.; the Commercial Fishing Industry Council; the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union in Vancouver; and the Fisheries Council of B.C. and so forth.

In terms of the mining side, if you will, the list includes the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee; the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute; the Mining Association of Canada; the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in Calgary; and the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum. I have full pages of these.

There's not as wide or as long a list—and perhaps it should be longer—of coastal communities...including Skeena, or Skeena district at any rate.

So to put things in perspective, I think it's important to realize that, yes, if you look long and hard enough, you'll find a group that's not on the list and that hasn't been consulted, especially a group that might have been created a short while ago, relatively speaking, as one of them in front of us today, created in May of 1997.

No consultation process is perfect. I think any government that says otherwise is foolhardy. But to try to insinuate that there has been none, or that there's an attempt to exclude—even worse—I think is stretching reality to the point of almost ridicule.

Mr. Jack Mussallem: Mr. Chairman, can I respond to that, please?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It wasn't a question, sir. I do have a question, however.

• 1225

I want to touch on something said yesterday by one of the groups appearing before us, that the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers—and I have not verified if that's accurate, so if you know otherwise, I'd appreciate you telling me, sir—actually supports the notion of excluding exploration in marine conservation areas.

Are you aware of that?

Mr. Bill Belsey: From CAPP? A policy from CAPP? No.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Okay.

Mr. Bill Belsey: If they are referring to the leases turned over—in 1992, I do believe—to Prince Phillip as part of this world ocean conservation program—I am well aware of them turning over leases that they paid absolutely nothing for and that belonged to the Government of British Columbia—then, yes, I am.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do you support that approach, or are you opposed to that?

Mr. Bill Belsey: Yes, I am opposed to them turning over leases that, really, didn't belong to them.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: What would you rather see happen with those leases?

Mr. Bill Belsey: Those leases should have gone back to the Government of British Columbia, I believe.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And to give them to someone else so that exploration can occur...

Mr. Bill Belsey: Once the moratorium is lifted, then the government can deal with those leases as they see fit, yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You talk in your letter—not you, sir; I'm sorry; the chairman of your association—about your group. I'm just curious, because I don't know the group you represent here today. Can you elaborate a little more about the group, and who it's made up of? He mentions thousands of supporters. Are those members? Are you made up of individual members?

You're a non-profit group. I recognize that, because you requested assistance to be here. That's fine. That's the way things should be. But I wouldn't mind having just a sense of the group you represent.

Mr. Bill Belsey: Sure.

There were seven fellows, all of us living and working in Prince Rupert. The tourist industry was having problems because of the blockade of the Alaskan ferries, the forest industry was down, the fishing industries were having problems, and we decided there had to be something the community could build on. One that came up was gas and oil, and from that point on we started looking into it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Essentially to lift the moratorium.

Mr. Bill Belsey: Yes, to lift the moratorium.

We received nothing and asked for nothing from CAPP, the Canadian oil producers. We have no ties whatsoever other than the community of Prince Rupert, which has assisted with some of our expenses and printing of articles and whatever.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to welcome everybody here today. As you might guess, being a representative for the area, I know all these people very well, and I'm pleased they could be here today to make their presentations.

The only question I have to ask—and it really wouldn't matter who answered it—is really to give the rest of the committee a flavour for the concern out there amongst coastal communities. How extensive has your communication been with other communities, with community leaders, with fishing groups, with chambers of commerce and so on? Perhaps it will give people on the committee a flavour of just how widespread and deep the concern might be with regard to certain aspects of Bill C-48.

Mr. Jack Mussallem: Everybody I've talked to has some concerns about Bill C-48. I premised my comments by telling you that I represent the north coast area, as does Councillor Green, who's with the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District.

Prince Rupert is a service centre to the communities on the north coast. We have been very hard hit because of the problems in Asia and because a large part of our economy is resource-based.

We're looking for opportunities. I represent people who are very proud, who want to make a living, who are used to, either on a full-time basis, year round, or on a seasonal basis, making a living. They are now being inhibited from doing that, largely because of the rationalization in the west coast salmon fishing industry along with the problems in the pulp, paper, and lumber industries. We're looking for whatever opportunities are reasonable and will employ people.

• 1230

Bill C-48 is seen as not being progressive, really, and as not creating economic opportunity. I'm here to tell you that if you take nothing else from what I've said, take this—there is a very great financial reality to the life we live and to the problems we are having there, and we're trying to get beyond it. Bill C-48, as a blanket bill for the whole coast, is not seen as helping us in our lifestyle and promoting us so that we can be a better part of Canada and we can make a living.

Councillor Green knows the Queen Charlotte Islands well, and I've been there numerous times myself. We've seen the problems that are now being experienced when you take South Moresby, create a park, and take all the people who used to work there in the forest industry. The community of Sandspit on the Queen Charlotte Islands is near bankrupt.

We see Bill C-48 as taking the whole coast, or certainly portions of the coast, and moving it in that direction. You're trying to take people away from the jobs they have—and jobs right now are few—and you're trying to inhibit the economic activity. You're not doing it intentionally, but that could be the effect of the bill. That's our concern.

Mr. Mike Scott: Did you want to add anything to that, Patty?

Mr. Pat Green: No, I think he did fairly well on that.

I'd like to respond to the gentleman over here, though. I don't know if it's proper or not; I'll go to the chair. He refers to a list—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do you want a copy?

Mr. Pat Green: No, I believe the distribution.

We're basically under a state of siege with Mifflin. There have been so many processes and whatever.

When I talk to fishermen about this, they know nothing about it. We're talking rank and file fishermen. That's who I'm talking about. There may be a copy sitting in an office somewhere, but that's what going on.

The conference that was organized in Prince Rupert did exclude a wide portion, most of the users of the coast. Perhaps you'll be able to see the original list of invitees. I believe it was a managed process.

Some of the references here are dealing with the aboriginal side. I also have the honour of being chair of the fisheries committee at TNAC, the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee. It's by ministerial appointment, provincially and federally. None of this has come through that committee on the government side, and there are all kinds of implications there. It hasn't even been discussed there.

I'm just saying, on a time basis, let's slow down. If we're going to create marine protected areas, let's do it properly.

There are two things I would like to leave you with, if I might, Mr. Chairman. First, over and over I see the the references that you would apply to the Gulf of Georgia, and over and over, in reading this, I wrote down “LG”, or local government. That's the way to proceed with some of these things. It just needs to be done carefully.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

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

Like Mr. Bélanger, I have a question on this whole consultation process. On this list, on one page alone dealing with fishing and aquaculture, about two dozen organizations were so-called consulted. In the recreation area, it was the same thing.

I'm wondering what kind of cover letter was sent out, and would ask if our director general could respond to that.

The Chairman: Mr. Amos.

• 1235

Mr. Bruce Amos (Director General, National Parks, Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage): I don't have the cover letter here, and I'd have to go back, Mr. Chairman, to respond to that question, if I may.

Mr. Mark, what went out to the 3,000 or so names and individuals and organizations on the list was a consultative document entitled Charting the Course, which outlined some of the thinking behind the bill, including the issue of prohibition of oil and gas and mineral exploration. That was quite clearly in that document.

But as to what cover letter went to which groups, if that's of interest to the committee, I'd be pleased to respond.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

The Chairman: Did you ask to speak, Mr. Bélanger, or Mr. White?

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

I'd also like to address a question to the director general.

Do you have any evidence, from anywhere in the world, that it is inappropriate to permit oil and gas drilling or exploration in a park environment? If so, what references do you have to that effect?

Mr. Bruce Amos: I don't have available any specific evidence in that regard. The comments I made to the committee yesterday, on a similar question, were that this is a standard, international norm, one that you'll see in other countries' main marine protected area systems. It has been the policy basis for discussions across the country since the early 1980s, on two national consultations. To my knowledge, it was never challenged in those consultations as a basis for Canada's marine conservation areas.

I think underlying such a prohibition is, on the one hand, a sense of possible risk, but I can't respond to your question with any proven studies on that score. The sense is of possible risk to the environment.

The other point I might make is that the thinking behind a marine conservation area is that you will be protecting the seabed and the subsoil and the water column, and that activities that directly add to or directly remove from that would be inappropriate.

So with respect to your question, that seems to be the philosophical thinking that underlines marine protected areas worldwide.

As well, two points. First, the hot vents the witness was referring to are, if I'm not mistaken, generally offshore and in the EEZ.

It is quite clear—you're right—that the enabling legislation would make a marine conservation area in that area possible. However, Parks Canada's interests are in representing, in the west coast, the five marine regions, and our interests are clearly coastal. We have no plans for marine conservation on the west coast that stretches to the EEZ or would move out toward the kind of hot vents the witness was dealing with.

At some point, Mr. Chairman, if you wish, it may be useful to the committee to indicate what Parks Canada's areas of interests on the west coast are or might be. There is a sense with the bill that one is looking for certainty, and witnesses are wanting us to be more specific. There's a concern that this is a blanket bill for the west coast.

If it would be of interest to the committee, I could give some more specificity to the interests Parks Canada has on the west coast...in light of the bill's purpose for marine conservation areas, that they be representative.

An hon. member: And east coast as well—and north.

• 1240

The Chairman: If I understood it correctly from the testimony yesterday, there were 29 areas projected over time. Perhaps you could give us information as to those.

Mr. Bruce Amos: Of the 29 marine regions, I'll focus initially on the west coast, if you agree. Our work in conjunction with scientists has identified five marine regions on Canada's Pacific west coast.

The interpretation of the purpose of the bill, which calls for a system of representative marine conservation areas, would be that each of those five marine regions would be represented by an area. So that would be, at maximum, five areas on the west coast.

I might just mention where those five regions are, and where we're at in our current thinking and collaboration. Hecate Strait and the Queen Charlotte Island shelf are the two regions that surround the Queen Charlotte Islands, and are the subject of a federal-provincial agreement signed in 1988 between Canada and British Columbia that calls for the establishment of a marine conservation area there.

The boundaries of that area have been agreed to by the province and the federal government after a mineral and energy resource assessment identified the oil and gas potential as low. The companies with permits in the area have subsequently relinquished their interests voluntarily as a contribution to making that marine conservation area.

So in the north, that is the one area we're looking at and would represent two... We do not have other interests across the coast toward Prince Rupert.

Moving south, in natural region three, the Queen Charlotte Sound, we have some studies underway to identify possible representative areas. Any consideration of that would be done through a federal-provincial marine planning exercise, with public consultation.

It would be done, I might add, in full collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the appropriate provincial departments. That process is starting. We intend to be part of that and to make some suggestions. It would be a public process, and an integrated public process.

Moving further south, on the outer coast of Vancouver Island, the Vancouver Island shelf, we have currently a marine component off Pacific Rim National Park reserve. At the moment we have no intention of expanding on that.

In terms of the Strait of Georgia, which has been mentioned a number of times, the Honourable Andy Mitchell, jointly with the Province of British Columbia, recently announced a public feasibility study to have a look at the southern Gulf Islands area as a possible site for a marine conservation area in collaboration with a full range of stakeholders.

Those are the five regions. In those, four of the areas we're interested in are already identified and known, and the fifth will be shortly. It will be part of an open public process led by DFO and the province.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Bonwick, you asked to be listed for a question. Go ahead.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Jack, you're bringing a breath of fresh air to this insofar as stating that the principles of a marine conservation act are sort of motherhood issues, and you could agree with some of those things.

If I understand it properly, you're simply asking to be involved in the process, to be consulted, to have your opinions recognized as representing the interests of the constituents who elected you, suggesting there should be other community-type organizations involved in the consultation process rather than saying, “This is what we're doing, and this is how you're going to do it.”

If in fact that consultation process was followed and there was a feeling there was community buy-in, could you envision supporting something like this?

Mr. Jack Mussallem: I could if you set up a process. In my initial comments, I suggested that if you were to proceed to get the local buy-in that you've talked of, you should have a steering committee made up of local stakeholders along the coast—the north coast, the central coast, the south coast—and they should be both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

As my associate councillor, Mr. Green, has pointed out, we have many communities on the west coast made up of aboriginals and non-aboriginals. In fact, some of them are aboriginal communities.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Quite frankly, Jack, it won't work if it's done any other way. It simply won't work.

Mr. Jack Mussallem: I don't believe it would.

• 1245

Mr. Paul Bonwick: One of our witnesses yesterday had a rather humorous anecdote. He said, “Any other way”—and he was talking about the various gulfs—“would create a gulf war.”

Unless there's some type of buy-in, some type of consultation process, I don't think it will work. But if that process does occur, through consultations with community organizations and representations from stakeholder or advisory committees, whichever word you want to use, then in fact I think there is an opportunity for success here.

What I would do, then, based on your comments, is just read to you a few sections in the bill with regard to consultation:

10.(1) The Minister shall provide opportunities for consultation with any federal and provincial ministers and agencies, affected coastal communities and aboriginal organizations and other parties that the Minister considers appropriate in the development of a marine conservation area policy, the establishment and modification of marine conservation areas and any other matters that the Minister considers appropriate.

Further down, in subclause 11(1), it says:

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

That's the same management plan you would have an opportunity to espouse your views on, to represent your various jurisdictions.

So there certainly is, as I read it, a very strong sense of grassroots involvement when identifying how these various jurisdictions may be managed and what the impacts might be.

With regard to Councillor Green's comments on this—I think it was Councillor Green who made the statement that there should be some type of economic impact assessment done “prior to”—well, until such time as we identify them and have agreement from all the resident stakeholders, we're not going to know which areas are going to be affected in order to do an economic assessment or impact.

So I would suggest you're right, but until such time as you have the community buy-in to identify what uses are going to be allowed, what uses aren't going to be allowed, and what the exact area is going to be, you won't be able to carry through with an economic impact assessment.

So there are provisions in here for what you're saying with regard to the community buy-in and the consultation process.

Regarding the mining side of things, I have some very serious—

Mr. Jack Mussallem: Can I please comment before you deal with the mining?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Okay.

Mr. Jack Mussallem: We see those provisions in the bill—and I've read the bill—but at the same time, you have to recognize that you had meetings in Vancouver and in Prince Rupert, and as Councillor Green has said, they basically had to go to the meeting uninvited.

There's nothing in here that leads me to believe the people I'm representing will have an opportunity under this bill to have a say.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: You would like something maybe with some more teeth in it to absolutely guarantee it, with no grey areas. Okay. That's what we're looking for out of these meetings.

Mr. Jack Mussallem: I have to tell you, I represent everybody. I represent the majority of the residents on the north coast, and 24,000 in the regional district. I don't represent special interest groups.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I wasn't suggesting that.

From the mining side of things, I'm very much concerned about the exclusionary clauses with regard to oil and gas exploration.

This could go to either the parliamentary secretary or the director general. Was I to understand correctly yesterday that the Canadian miners association—I'm not sure about the appropriate designation of the organization—was saying that they had no problem with the legislation having an exclusionary clause in there to restrict, for now and forevermore, once these areas are defined, oil and gas exploration?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: And the...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If I may, one of the witnesses yesterday, in response, I believe, to a question from you—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: —said that the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers had agreed to exclude oil and gas exploration in the marine conservation areas, and had voluntarily surrendered the rights.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Thank you for that information, Mauril.

• 1250

I understand the issue of surrendering their documentation, or right to mine certificates, but what I'm talking about is separate and aside from that. I would like to have some type of confirmation on that, that in fact some umbrella organization, that is supposedly representing the mining community in Canada, is stating that they are in agreement with restricting this area because it would certainly—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Not the mining.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: It's oil and gas exploration, yes.

That would clear up a lot of my concern, because I have some very significant concerns about the exclusionary clause from oil and gas explorations and potentially mining. I just don't see any substantive data that supports that exclusionary clause in here. If it is part of our responsibility to assess the economic impacts of this legislation, then in fact I think we have a responsibility to ensure that these are science-based recommendations or pieces of legislation rather than simply politically convenient pieces within the legislation.

So I would ask if we could get something from that, verifying the position of the oil and gas...

[Technical Difficulty—Editor]

The Chairman: Mr. White, last question.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you.

I'd like to pursue a little further this strange science, or reliability of science aspect, with the director general.

You talked about an international norm that's accepted, but you didn't provide any reference whatsoever as to why that norm would be there. I'm really having trouble with the idea that we exclude an activity with no evidence whatsoever that it's of benefit to exclude it, or that there's a reason to exclude it.

I really want to ask you, isn't this political correctness to the extreme? How can we pass a bill on the basis of an internationally accepted norm without having any reason to do so? Can you not provide in any form some reference material that would support a total exclusion?

Mr. Bruce Amos: The justification I'm offering is the sense that marine conservation areas, which are dedicated to be maintained in perpetuity, for the benefit of future generations as a representation of the marine region—that includes the water column and the seabed and the subsoil—shouldn't, in principle, be subject to activities that disturb the seabed or remove from the seabed.

In addition, there is a sense that there is a possible risk of long-term environmental damage for short-term economic gain. In this particular case, and based on a precautionary principle that, I might add, Canada is committed to, both at UNCED and in the Oceans Act, which Parliament has passed and is the chapeau for all of our marine protected area initiatives, it is felt the cautious approach should be taken in special areas that are going to be designed, not blanketing the coast but in specific places that are to represent our marine heritage for the long term.

Mr. Ted White: So it's a philosophical and theoretical approach rather than a practical and evidence-based approach.

Mr. Bruce Amos: I don't have any study I can put before you, in answer to your question, but I can point to a sense of concern in other countries.

If you look at the history of the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which is the world's largest, at almost twice the size of our entire national parks system, the origin of the Australian government action to protect the Great Barrier Reef was quite clearly in proposals for seabed mining and for oil and gas exploration. In that case, concerned about possible risks—and I'm sure similar questions were raised at the time; namely, “Can you prove it?”—the Australian government, faced with that risk, made that significant move in the early 1970s.

So if that's a philosophical approach or concern about risk that underlies marine protected areas, then it's yes.

The Chairman: I just wanted to mentioned, perhaps to pick up on the comments of Mayor Mussallem, that first of all, we have had evidence here before us two or three times from different bodies.

• 1255

There's an area being looked at now on the coast of Newfoundland, Bonavista. What happens is that according to the legislation started even before then, the minister has no choice. He or she has to appoint an advisory committee composed of all the stakeholders. This has definitely been the case in Newfoundland. It's very easy to check.

It includes all the various fishers and fisheries industries, all the various industries located there, the various representative groups, the residents, and the Government of Newfoundland represented by the minister in charge of that particular facet of the government to examine it. If the majority opinion says they don't want this area, it's not going to be imposed upon them with that negotiation to find out what the parameters are.

So to assume that in Prince Rupert tomorrow morning the minister can go and install an MCA would be the furthest thing that could happen. First of all, he has to pinpoint where this is. Mr. Amos has clearly said where it is, although not in principle. If it were, there is no way, according to the law, you can establish it without this very lengthy process, in addition to which no regulations can be made under this bill without the assent of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There are very strict references to his recommendations being paramount before anything can go forward.

With regard to the whole discussion about the precautionary principle, I remember the word Mr. Ainsworth used, that this precautionary principle was ascribed to “scurrilous” scientists and environmentalists.

Well, may I point out to you that this was adopted by the Earth Summit in Rio, which included 102 heads of state from around the world. I think just about every nation of the world today, including Canada, has ratified the precautionary principle. We have it in the Oceans Act and in many other acts because this is something we are committed to internationally.

So as for your suggestion that it's the child of scurrilous scientists and environmentalists, I'm sorry, but I think that language goes very far.

With regard to oil and gas exploration—

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I thought you were supposed to act as an impartial chair in these proceedings. I think you're very much taking a very proponent position, and I don't think it's quite appropriate to be doing that.

The Chairman: If you don't like the way I act as a chair, the Speaker of the House is there. You can make a complaint to the Speaker of the House. I think I'm a very fair chair. I gave every member the right to speak as long as they wanted. At the same time, I have attended many meetings where chairs are allowed to make remarks.

If you don't like the remarks I make, Mr. Duncan—

Mr. John Duncan: It's being fair to the witnesses, too.

The Chairman: If you don't like the remarks I make, and if you feel I'm unfair to the witnesses, please apply to the Speaker of the House and get me sanctioned or removed if you feel that I am working according to an unfair practice.

I don't think I'm unfair at all. I'm just stating that there's been a lot of discussion about things that I feel I have some knowledge of, and this is my reading of the law. We heard from different people yesterday about consultations, and I wanted to point it out.

Regarding the precautionary principle, this is something about which I know. I wanted to point out that there are two sides to every question.

Third, about oil and gas exploration, I don't think we find that in very many of our protected areas in Canada. I mean, to have oil and gas exploration in Banff, for instance, would be a little bit strange.

I just wanted to make these points.

Mr. Inky Mark: If I may make a point, Mr. Chairman, the word that's used in most of this regulation is “may”; it doesn't say “must”. This is not in reference to the advisory, only in terms of—

The Chairman: I'm afraid you will see that it says “The Minister shall consult”. It's not “may”.

Mr. Inky Mark: No, but the whole process is still loaded on the side of government. Even if it comes to committee for change, the government still has the majority.

Mr. Ted White: It says there, “in the opinion of the Minister”, over and over.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: On a point of order, I welcome Mr. Mark's remarks, but perhaps we're entering into clause-by-clause debate now, and perhaps we should put that off.

• 1300

In fairness to Mr. Duncan, he's new to this committee, and does not know... I invite him to consult with the regular members of the committee. Perhaps I shouldn't prejudice what they're going to say, but I would be quite surprised if they were to say anything other than that this committee is perhaps one of the least partisan committees, and we work well together.

So to have comments like this made is I think perhaps because he is not aware of the workings of this committee.

Mr. John Duncan: Just to respond to that, I've obviously sat on other committees as well, and dealt with lots of other chairs. I've also previously sat in committee with our current chair. I've never challenged this chair before, but I found the specific comments being made in this specific instance to be over the top. That's the reason I said what I said.

I don't plan on taking it any further. I just thought it was a worthy comment at the time. I appreciate the dialogue we've had on the issue. I'm not bearing any ill will, or any grudge. I think it was useful dialogue.

Thank you.

The Chairman: In fact, to show how open this meeting is, the clerk has reminded me that you're not even listed as a member of the committee today.

Mr. John Duncan: No, I am not a member of the committee, that's correct.

The Chairman: You're not even a temporary member.

Mr. John Duncan: That's correct.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: To the director general, in terms of some of the area-specific discussions you had with the conservation areas, is there a document that narrows down the boundaries of those areas that could be available, of all the 29 referred to? Could that be available?

I may have missed it in a previous presentation, and I apologize for any oversight on my part, but I would request that.

As well, there is a terminology conflict here—that is, the marine conservation areas under Parks Canada might be in direct misinterpretation with marine protected areas under DFO.

We recently passed an act on the St. Lawrence—Saguenay Marine Park.

To the director general, why did Bill C-48 not directly say, “An Act respecting marine parks”? If you trigger marine parks, the issue of development is a matter of precedence here internationally. You can't imagine that in Banff National Park you would see a bunch of exploration trucks driving through, and a mining exploration system happening in a marine park.

Maybe it's just terminology problems here. Why was this terminology selected for this bill?

Mr. Bruce Amos: If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to answer both questions.

First, on the areas of interest, yes, there is a document. As part of the documents made available at the time of the departmental presentation to members, there was a map showing the 29 natural regions in the areas in which we're currently working.

That, I admit, was a summary document. We would be pleased to share with committee members the systems plan for national marine conservation areas, entitled Sea to Sea to Sea, tabled in Parliament in 1996, if memory serves. This document takes each of the 29 marine regions, identifies what makes them distinctive, and indicates areas of interest that we know of in each of those. That's a public document, and it's on the web.

Your second question is an interesting one. Why did we not call these “marine parks”? Part of the answer is that we used to. In the 1980s, when Parks Canada began thinking about this, we developed an approach called “national marine parks”. But after public consultations, both in the eighties and in the early nineties, it was concluded that using the name marine parks was introducing some considerable confusion. What people expected, when we called it a marine park, was essentially a national park in the water. People expected that all commercial activity would be excluded, as it is in a national park.

• 1305

So people expected an area where there was no commercial fishing, where the minister was in complete control, and where there would be controls on transportation and other things.

It was decided that in order to clarify the fundamental difference in purpose between a national park, which is an area where, outside of visitors, human use, such as commercial use, extraction of resources, human impact, is to be eliminated... The conclusion, and the international experience, is that marine things—we were calling them marine parks—have a different basis. They do, and should, allow much more human activity, particularly in the case of sustainable fisheries and transportation.

So partly for that reason—to help better explain what it was, that this is not a national park in the water but a more flexible tool aimed at establishing long-term models of sustainable development with a conservation ethic as well—it was decided to choose the name “marine conservation areas”.

There was a conscious shift, done through public consultations, to make a distinction between our responsibilities for national parks on land and how we propose to manage marine conservation areas. That policy shift is evident in this bill, I believe, in that this bill is quite different from the National Parks Act.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's essentially the same answer that's to come in writing in response to Mr. Mark's question on Tuesday.

Is that sufficient, or do you want it in writing?

Mr. Inky Mark: I want it in writing so I can read it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You can always get the transcript. Fine.

Mr. Inky Mark: I want to see how that process has changed from a focus on parks to marine conservation areas.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I want to apologize, Mr. Chair, for being a little late. I had a commitment outside the Hill, and I couldn't avoid it.

The Chairman: Fine.

I would like to thank the witnesses very much for coming. I think regarding all these bills, sometimes you hear one side of the story and another and another, and I think you have made your point of view extremely clear. You've been very clear as to where you stand, and very forceful in your comments. We appreciate them very much, as we do your coming all this way to tell us your story. Thank you very much indeed.

Before we break up, I would like to ask you, Mr. Amos, if you could give us an idea of when you see yourselves ready with amendments and so forth for clause-by-clause so that the clerk can get prepared.

Would you be ready for the first week after the hearings, the week of March 8, or will you require more time? Maybe you could let us know. I imagine after the hearings there will be amendments coming forward, so I would like to find out so that we can organize our time.

Mr. Bruce Amos: Shall I discuss that with the clerk?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should be involved in that discussion as well.

The Chairman: Yes, of course.

The meeting is adjourned.