CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 13, 1999

• 1105

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which is convened to study Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas.

[Translation]

The meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage will now come to order. On our agenda today is the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-48, an Act respecting marine conservation areas.

[English]

Before we start, I'd like to ask members if they have received this memorandum that was sent to you during the Easter break with regard to the committee work plan for the next few weeks. It's with regard to just the dates of our work.

There's one item there that is extremely important, that is, our budget. We can't operate the committee unless we approve this budget. We sent you the budget proposal for $78,500, and the clerk needs an authority to be able to go to the liaison committee and defend the budget.

With regard to the NAC, as you know, Madame Riley resigned. With regard to the scheduled meeting on June 10, considering there is no head of the board now, what I would suggest is that when the order in council scheduling another appointment is issued, then we as a committee could invite the new chairperson to appear.

[Translation]

The motion calls for the meeting to be postponed until Cabinet has appointed someone to fill Ms. Riley's seat on the NAC Board.

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

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise: I understand why you're making that motion, but I just have a couple of comments that—

The Chairman: No, it's not a motion. It's just a suggestion.

Mr. Mark Muise: It's a recommendation.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Mark Muise: A couple of comments I would tend to make is that I agree with the fact that we won't have the chairperson of that committee there. However, there were certain undertakings by that group that they would have reports to present, and I see no reason those could not be presented without the chairperson being in place. There obviously is a vice-chair, and that person could do that job as well.

The Chairman: I should point out to you that at this time

[Translation]

in view of Ms. Riley's resignation, the NAC has neither a chairman nor an executive director.

[English]

He's a temporary person right now. So there needs to be two permanent people appointed. I don't see why there shouldn't be an interim report to us as to what they do, but I'm just suggesting that if they appear here without two confirmed heads, it would be a little bit counterproductive.

Mr. Bélanger and Madame Bulte.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, either the clerk or someone else could make some inquiries at the NAC. Who knows, perhaps these officials would be willing to testify before the committee in June. We could let it be known that we are willing to be flexible if they need a little more time, which would be a reasonable request given the circumstances you've just described. I don't think we should necessarily postpone their appearance until the fall. If, and only if, a request is made, I would agree to an extension to accommodate the chair and the board of directors. Let's wait to see if the committee receives such a request.

[English]

The Chairman: Madame Bulte.

• 1110

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of the things we spoke about when the board appeared before was that they were doing a strategic plan. I think that was also a key item in the Auditor General's report, and it's a matter that is outstanding. My understanding is that they were coming to the position of finalizing it, and they were going to report on where they were in either the creation or the implementation of that plan. Having sat on arts boards before, if there is no one leading the way and if there is no one pushing to have that strategic plan done.... Now, I may be wrong, but I would assume that they are busy searching for both a chair and a director general or CEO and that there has been no time to deal with the strategic plan, as there appears not to have been for many years. Perhaps there are other things we can do, and I would go so far as to suggest that they come and report to us when they have their strategic plan as to where they are with regard to its implementation.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: The only difference I see between today and when the NAC made their presentation before us is that they don't have a chair. They probably have a vice-chair. This thing keeps perpetuating itself. If they do make a request, I'd be willing to listen to that request. But until we have noticed that they haven't done that, I think we should proceed.

The Chairman: Okay.

We'll go to Mr. Mark, and then we will close the discussion on it, because we have other business to do. Mr. Mark.

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

I have just a brief comment. An organization doesn't stop just because it loses personnel. Certainly, a chairman can be replaced. As you've already indicated, there's an acting chair at this point in time. I believe the purpose for the board to appear before the committee is basically to give a progress report in terms of what they've done from the first time they met with us until June. I would certainly support the same meeting dates.

The Chairman: Fine. So what we'll do is follow up on Mr. Bélanger's suggestion. We'll get back to the NAC, mention to them the date is still there, and if they come back to us and ask for a change or a delay for particular reasons, then I'll bring it back before you, and then we'll make a decision.

Meanwhile, can we approve the budget, please? The work schedule is purely for information, but the budget has to be approved. It has been circulated to you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We'll move on to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-48.

Just to establish some rules of sequence and everything, let's agree on this. Many amendments have been put forward. The way the amendments are dealt with is that we start with clause 2. The title and the preamble are dealt with last. That is the rule.

Secondly, where amendments have been received and are exactly the same, we deal with them in the order in which they have been received by the clerk, and the clerk has a record. These are the books of amendments, and they are listed in the order in which they have been received. So if there is a government amendment and a Reform amendment and the Reform amendment arrived first, that amendment would be dealt with first. This is for amendments that refer to the same spot in the bill.

Although the two cover the same substance, if one amendment refers to a line that is preceding the other, that one takes precedence regardless of when it was received. If there are two or three amendments regarding the same subject and the same spot in the bill, if one is defeated, the other one automatically doesn't come forward. If one goes forward and is adopted, obviously the second falls away if they deal with exactly the same subject.

• 1115

Now, I am going to suggest something to you that is for the committee to accept or reject. What we've found in the bill—and the clerk has gone over it with me, and it makes a lot of sense—is that there have been five amendments suggested to the preamble and two to the title of the bill. What happens is that there are amendments during the clause-by-clause, from clause 2 on, that flow from the changes to the preamble and the changes to the title. Let me explain myself. If we change the title, we have to change it all the way through in various clauses. So if we deal with these amendments in the clauses first without referring to the title, we're putting the cart before the horse.

The rule says we have to deal with clause 2 on, before we deal with the preamble and the title, unless the committee gives its unanimous consent to do otherwise. The committee is master of its own destiny. It can make a motion to say we will deal with the preamble and the title first. If it does choose to do this, a lot of the amendments that are consequential will automatically be accepted or defeated, as relevant.

So what is suggested to me by the clerk, just to make the committee's work easier, is to consider the amendments to the preamble and the title first, under unanimous consent, but not adopt the preamble or the title at this time, to stand them, so that if later on you have further amendments to the preamble or you want to have a further amendment to the title, they will be open until the end of the bill. In other words, we're not going to adopt the title now; we don't want to adopt the preamble now. We'll just deal with these amendments, and then as we look at the consequences of the amendments in the clause-by-clause, we'll go accordingly.

If this is clear and if you agree that this makes sense...and it is a recommendation of the clerk, it's not mine. She recommended it to me. I looked at what there is, and it makes a lot of sense. If you agree with that, then we'll need unanimous consent by all the members to accept this procedure. If you don't, well, then we'll deal with clause 2 first. It's very simple.

[Translation]

Ms. St-Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Before we adopt anything, I'd like to take a few minutes to make a brief statement outlining the Bloc's position on this bill which we are about to consider clause by clause?

The Chairman: Could we settle something first before I turn the floor over to you?

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Certainly.

The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent for the committee to start off by examining the amendments to the preamble and title before proceeding with its clause-by-clause study, with the understanding that the preamble and the title will only be adopted once we have concluded our study?

Since there appears to be unanimous consent, we'll begin by looking at the preamble and the title. Then will be set them aside and go on to our clause-by-clause study, beginning with clause 2.

Please go ahead, Ms. St-Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As I was saying, I would like to outline the Bloc's position on this bill. While I haven't taken part in the work of the committee up until now, I did review the testimony that was presented.

We are opposed to this bill, primarily because it would result in duplication, particularly between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Canadian Heritage, and create confusion. Moreover, it remains unclear whether marine conservation areas could be established in accordance with the principle that guided the creation of the Saguenay-St.Lawrence marine park.

• 1120

I've also read the government's amendment to clause 5. While it reflects the government's good will and willingness to co- operate, important questions remain, particularly as regards the seabed in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and its estuary, the ownership of which Quebec has claimed.

We support the spirit and intent of the bill, which is to preserve marine areas for future generations. However, we feel that this mission is the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans. I recall that in response to a question from my colleague Mr. Godfrey, the Director General of Parks Canada, Mr. Tom Lee, stated that responsibility for Canada's oceans rested with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Moreover, all of the groups from the coastal communities that have testified thus far before the committee have voiced their opposition to the bill, whether it be groups representing fishers or aboriginals. In their view, the bill would duplicate the work of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Furthermore, the advisory committee responsible for assessing the feasibility of setting up a marine conservation area in Bonavista and Notre Dame bays in Newfoundland recently concluded its activities. As evidenced by the Department of Canadian Heritage press release, many residents, particularly fishers, are concerned about the impact that a marine conservation area would have on their way of life.

To achieve the stated objectives, perhaps we need to expand the concept of a marine protected area, as defined by DFO. Today, as was the case when this process was initiated, this approach is vastly preferable to putting in place new legislation, a new infrastructure and a new regulatory framework, all of which have been rejected by the groups concerned that have appeared before this committee.

Moreover, I would point out that this position is consistent with the amendment put forward by my Reform Party colleague. Unfortunately, however, this amendment alone, which would acknowledge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as the individual responsible for marine conservation areas, is not enough to prevent duplication between marine protected areas and marine conservation areas.

The Oceans Act should be amended to include the concept of marine conservation areas. I'm certain that we'll have an opportunity to come back to this subject.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the bill or in the amendments table by the government, despite the latter's good intentions, to guarantee that once the bill is passed, Quebec's territorial integrity will be respected. In fact, it's well-known that the federal and Quebec governments hold different opinions as to the ownership of the seabed, most notably in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and its estuary.

Pursuant to the proposed legislation, the federal government will have the authority to establish marine conservation areas. The provision in question, as amended, would read as follows:

a) ... is satisfied that Her Majesty in right of Canada has clear title to or an unencumbered right of ownership in the lands to be included in the marine conservation area,...

Some will take the fact that the government has ordered an end to the work of the advisory committee on the Bonavista marine area as a positive sign, one that shows that the federal government will respect jurisdictions. However, the Bloc Québécois, as I'm sure you understand, prefers to have these assurances in writing.

Consequently, we will be voting against the bill once our study is completed. For the sake of consistency, we also intend to abstain from voting on the proposed amendments of the government and opposition parties. I do recognize, however—and I repeat this—that the government is showing good faith. I don't doubt that it is acting in good faith. However, we will be opposing the bill because of the problems that we have identified.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. St-Hilaire, for outlining your party's position and for putting your cards on the table. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. Muise.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and also I would like to elaborate a little bit on the Progressive Conservative Party's position relative to this bill. It won't be very long, but I'd like to state it for the record, as Madame St-Hilaire did as well.

Mr. Chairman, the PC Party is very much in favour of protecting endangered species, the environment, unique ecosystems, and we also support protecting designated areas for our future generations, whether it is through the creation of a new national park or marine conservation areas. However, after listening to many witnesses who have appeared before the committee as well as watching the actions of both the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who unilaterally declared the Sable Gully a protected area, just east of Sable Island, and the Secretary of State for Parks, who withdrew from Newfoundland because of an apparent lack of support for the proposal, I became convinced that this piece of legislation is not necessary to fulfil the goal of having marine protected areas.

• 1125

The creation of the Saguenay Marine Park was a very lengthy process that involved all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, along with the various stakeholders, and the successful result was the creation of a very unique conservation area. The reason for the success of this project, in my opinion, revolves around consultation.

We have very serious concerns with the consultation process—or the lack of consultation—that took place before they went through with this bill. Many groups in coastal communities mentioned the lack of consultation in their presentations, and I can certainly attest to the lack of consultation within the coastal areas in my region. Many groups in coastal communities that I had the pleasure of contacting were unaware that the creation of this bill was even being considered. I believe that the 3,000 or so groups that were consulted were not adequately advised of the contents of Bill C-48.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has already demonstrated that a mechanism exists within the Fisheries Act that effectively creates marine protected areas, as demonstrated by the Sable Gully.

There needs to be more consultation with the fishing groups, the agriculturalists, and local communities that could be potentially affected by the implementation of such a bill before we, the Progressive Conservative Party, can support it.

The Secretary of State for Parks, when announcing that his department would discontinue the study of designated areas off Bonavista Bay, said, “I want to assure the people of Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame Bay area that if at some point in the future they expressed a strong interest in marine conservation areas, we would be happy to work with them again.” Well, Mr. Chairman, no one in my riding has yet to show any great interest in this proposal. Perhaps we should wait and take the approach of creating a marine conservation area by starting from the ground up, not from the top down.

I could go on with a number of other concerns that I have with this bill. However, I'll stop now and let my colleagues have the floor. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark.

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

I just want to make a brief comment, because at 12 o'clock I need to leave this meeting. I cannot be here between noon and 1 o'clock, but I will certainly try to attend all the other meetings.

The Reform Party's position is that it could support this bill with a number of amendments. Again, to be more specific, we believe the environment needs to be protected. It's really a motherhood issue, as I indicated in other committee meetings. This bill would be better served if it were called a protection act rather than a conservation act.

We question the consultation process that was assumed to have taken place from the beginning. I believe consultation was not thoroughly completed, as numerous members of the industry have indicated to us that they really knew nothing about the bill. In fact, I was surprised last summer, when I informed all the ministries of the provincial governments, that very few of them had heard about the bill. They may have received a letter, but they didn't really pay much attention to the bill.

This bill really gives too much authority to the minister in terms of designation. People in this country would feel more comfortable if designations were up front and they knew where these designations were, rather than the government being given the option of designating them at any time and any place, regardless of the so-called consultation process that was to be put in place.

We've heard from our witnesses that this bill crosses many other portfolios, and I don't believe we've had a thorough debate, certainly with reference to other portfolios and how other ministries are impacted by this bill.

Therefore, we could only support this bill if many of our amendments were put forth and supported. Other than that, if our amendments were defeated, we certainly would be voting against this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mark.

Tell me, after 12 o'clock, will there be somebody else to move your amendments?

Mr. Inky Mark: There will be no one here.

Okay, Mr. Bélanger will move my amendments.

• 1130

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We'll move them for him.

The Chairman: All right, thank you.

We'll now start with clause-by-clause. I refer you to the package of amendments, which are now in order. Now that we've agreed to start with the preamble, I will call government amendment G1.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Amendment G1 calls for the preamble to be amended by replacing lines 6 through 10 in the French version with the following:

dans le cadre de la conservation et de la gestion du milieu marin.

And, in the English version,

[English]

we are adding the words on line 6:

in the conservation and management of the marine environment

This was suggested to us by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, and it is essentially to make sure the principle we're referring to applies to exactly what it is we're adding, the conservation and management of the marine environment. It's a clarification. As suggested, we thought it made sense.

[Translation]

As I said, this amendment was suggested by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society to clarify the intent of this provision.

[English]

The Chairman: I think, Mr. Bélanger,

[Translation]

this amendment also proposes to replace "efficaces" with "efficientes" in the French version.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's correct. We propose to substitute the word "efficientes" for consistency's sake.

The Chairman: Understood.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chairman: I now call amendment NDP1, Mr. Laliberte, replacing lines 8 and 9 of the preamble. Are you ready to move your amendment?

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Yes, I so move.

The Chairman: Would you like to speak to it?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This bill deals with the definition of precautionary principle not as a direct definition but as a preamble statement. I believe the chairperson and some other members might have experienced similar conservation issues and overall principle and intent of the precautionary principle. Cost-effectiveness is a major concern when dealing with the precautionary principle, because it's an ideological statement. When you bring the word “cost-effective” in there, it's more of a policy statement. We are proposing that the word “cost-effective” be taken out of this.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, given that the main intent of this clause is to ensure that any lack of scientific certainty is not used as a reason to postpone preventive measures, the government supports this amendment in the sense that removing “cost-effective” does not change the intent. So we support the amendment from the NDP.

The Chairman: That saves a lot of time, it seems to me. So all in favour of the amendment...?

[Translation]

I'm sorry, Ms. St-Hilaire.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I trust you'll bear in mind that I will be abstaining from voting throughout our clause-by-clause study.

The Chairman: Yes, most certainly.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: These clauses will be adopted on division.

The Chairman: Of course.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Fine then. Thank you.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, that goes for me as well.

The Chairman: Are you also planning to abstain from voting?

Mr. Mark Muise: I plan to vote against every clause in the bill.

The Chairman: Every clause?

Mr. Mark Muise: I've already expressed my opposition to this bill.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are you opposed to amendment NDP1?

Mr. Mark Muise: No.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger, we must accept his position. Ms. St-Hilaire is opposed to this bill and plans to abstain from voting. We will take note of her opposition.

Mr. Muise, if you want us to record your vote, you'll have to let us know which amendments you are in favour of and which ones you oppose.

Mr. Mark Muise: I have problems with the bill in its entirety.

The Chairman: I understand.

Mr. Mark Muise: I'd like us to proceed in the simplest manner possible, while bearing in mind the comments I made at the outset.

The Chairman: Your opposition will be duly noted.

We now proceed with amendment G1a.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, the government is proposing this amendment in response to comments made by the New Democratic Party member Mr. Laliberte.

• 1135

Our objective is to clarify the meaning of marine conservation areas and to include the words "that are representative of the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans and the Great Lakes".

The Chairman: If there are no comments, then I will call the vote on amendment G1a.

[English]

Mr. Laliberte. I'm terribly sorry.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We had raised this issue because of a document that was presupposed or assumed to clarify this whole situation.

I just wanted to highlight for the committee and for the record that for any inland waters we want to contribute to the conservation and protection under a marine park or a marine conservation area, we would be bound by the National Parks Act only, which is very stringent. For Lake Athabasca, Great Bear Lake, Great Slave Lake, or Lake Winnipeg, if those communities wanted to contribute to the ecosystem and the biodiversity for this planet, we would only be bound by the National Parks Act and whatever legislation the provinces have. This Marine Conservation Areas Act, as it's titled here, would not cover the inland water bodies. That's all I was saying at the time. But this makes it very clear that this bill only deals pretty well with saltwater bodies and the Great Lakes themselves. It's just a caution here.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's what you wanted.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I wanted it clarified.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So we are.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes. You're clarifying it, but it's also a—

The Chairman: I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding. We have clarified it to the extent of the Great Lakes, but what Mr. Laliberte says he meant is not just the Great Lakes but all the large lakes and inland waters in Canada. Maybe Mr. Lee could address this to see if there is any opening that way.

I think that's what the government wants to restrict it to, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes. I just wanted to state for the record that if we wanted to contribute to protected areas in the other lakes, only the National Parks Act would be available to us under federal jurisdiction and whatever provincial legislation was created for each province.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's correct.

(Amendment agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: I now call government amendment G1b.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, this was suggested to the committee by the Bonavista and Notre Dame Bays' feasibility study advisory committee, and Dr. Nelson in particular. It is to provide a better balance, if you will, between conservation principles and sustainable use and Canadians living in coastal communities and their need to see themselves in the legislation.

So we're proposing to add, essentially, to line 26 on page 1 the words:

recognize that the marine environment is fundamental to the social, cultural and economic well-being of people living in coastal communities

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

The Chairman: I'll now call government amendment G1c.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, this amendment flows from a suggestion made by the Wildlife Management Council of Nunavut. Basically, it seeks to underscore the importance of recognizing the marine environment and of providing opportunities for research and monitoring of marine conservation areas. Professor Nelson recommended that we add the following after line 30 on page 1:

promote an understanding of the marine environment and provide opportunities for research and monitoring,

Let me know if you want me to dispense with the reading of the amendments.

involve federal and provincial ministers and agencies, affected aboriginal organizations and coastal communities and other persons and bodies, including bodies established under land claims agreements, in the effort to establish and maintain the representative system of marine conservation areas.

• 1140

This amendment follows up on the representations made to the committee during the course of our hearings.

[English]

The Chairman: The amendment has been moved. Are there any questions or comments? Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just want to raise an issue, and maybe a friendly amendment would be accepted to the term “coastal communities”. It says:

involve federal and provincial ministers and agencies, affected aboriginal organizations and coastal communities and other persons and bodies.

Some of these communities that are affected will not necessarily be coastal. If there are communities upstream from a river or lake source, you would want to involve these communities and not limit it to coastal communities. We know it's a marine park area, but there are water bodies that feed into the coast because of fresh water flowing in there, and you want to involve the inland—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, if we were limiting it to coastal communities, we might indeed take that under advisement and consideration, but we're not. We're specifying coastal communities, but we also say “and other persons and bodies, including”, so we're not exclusive here. In that sense, if there's a case to be made that someone down river, for instance, could be involved, absolutely, nothing here prevents that. So to the question of is that a friendly amendment, the answer is no.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments? Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It's just that we're at the preamble part, and we do have an amendment referring to this specific issue of coastal communities. Since we're not closing this preamble part and I don't know what flows through, you may want to deal with the internal clauses first before we vote on this one.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's the reverse. We will come back to the preamble if there are amendments throughout the body of the bill. That's what we've agreed upon.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, if I understand you correctly, you would like to stand this particular one until we have dealt with the clause, and then we'll come back to it.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, it's just that I feel that if we were to pass this one, I would have tied my hands for arguing—

The Chairman: That's why—

Mr. Rick Laliberte: —the following clause. Would you be able to come back and amend this one—

The Chairman: No—

Mr. Rick Laliberte: —once it has passed?

The Chairman: Then we'd need unanimous consent to reopen it.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Right.

The Chairman: We're not sticklers on procedure here. If you want to stand it until you've dealt with your clause, we can finish it afterwards.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, I would welcome that. I would recommend to stand it.

The Chairman: All right, we'll stand G1c.

(Amendment allowed to stand)

(On clause 1—Short title)

The Chairman: We'll go on to Reform amendment 1. Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chairman, it's fairly logical. If you want to call a spade a spade, this is what we do. We call it the Marine Protected Areas Act, and that's what it's about.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, we do not support this amendment. We believe it would create some confusion with the program that's administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This one, along with other Reform proposals, would have the effect of eliminating Parks Canada's marine conservation area program and subsuming it in DFO. That is not the intent of the legislation proposed by the government. I could go on, but we are not supportive of that amendment.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments? I think I did explain that in several clauses there are amendments flowing from this, so that if this one is defeated, the others are adjusted accordingly. Is this clear? I'll call for the vote on amendment R1.

• 1145

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: I now call NDP2. Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It is that this act be cited as the Marine Parks Act. We understand this is the leading-edge legislation in this country that would create marine protection, marine conservation. That's the end result, to name the act for what it really is. We've had success with the St. Lawrence-Saguenay Marine Park and we should follow through with that.

The marine park could be the core area of keeping the integrity of the environment, the ecological, and also the economical, social, and cultural interests in that region. Surrounding that, this park does not directly state, but we understand the department is working on a management plan that would work with zones. The three basic zones, as I understand this, would be that the park could be the core area. Surrounding that could be the conservation area, and beyond that could be a protected area.

So I think it begs for this government to take a leadership role to bring the DFO requirements, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Act, and also the Parks Act and the interests of the provincial governments.... Let's call this spade a spade. It's going to be a marine park. As Canadians, when you deal with marine parks, you can envisage what it is from here on in. This is a start of legislation that's going to carry on for generations and centuries, and maybe even millenniums. But let's call it a marine park right now. Like a snowshoe track, you start making trails...you have to start somewhere.

Otherwise you're bringing in marine protected areas, which is the same terminology DFO is using, and it throws everything into a twist. People envisage different areas. The fishers, the communities, the environmentalists, and the academics envisage a different thing. Once you say a marine park, it sets a standard from here on in. It was a success in Saguenay with the province of Quebec and the federal government in dealing with provincial and federal jurisdictions. Let's follow through.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, for similar reasons, but at the other end of the spectrum than the ones I gave for not supporting the Reform motion to change the title, we are not supporting the one proposed by the NDP. Public consultations have shown that the use of the term “park” is somewhat confusing and it led to a belief essentially that there would be complete prohibitions on the resource harvesting in these...at the time we called them parks, but we're now calling them conservations areas. By the way, we changed that in 1994. In fact, what we're trying to do is ensure that these areas are managed as models of ecologically sustainable use, where commercial shipping and fishing will be permitted, with core protection areas and zones. As a matter of fact, the notion of conservation areas and this ability to have a sustainable use is the key justification for having a separate act. So we're not prepared to support the amendment proposed by the NDP.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I think there are two other sources of confusion. To those members of the public who are aware of commercial establishments that call themselves similar sorts of things, marine park might mean.... For example, if you live in southern Ontario there's something called Marineland, which presents itself as a marine park.

Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Edmonton has it too.

• 1150

Mr. John Godfrey: I will not talk about what happens in these places, but I certainly wouldn't want what we're doing here to be confused with these existing commercial enterprises, which the term “marine park” might falsely conjure up.

Second, if I understand the member's point, if the marine park were to be at the centre of a larger entity called a marine conservation area, that would force us to restructure the whole act to meet the description. I don't think we'd be ahead in terms of being less confused. I feel myself already much more confused if we were to adopt this title.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Being very optimistic about common sense, the whole intent of terminology would mean, similar to a PR campaign, trying to get the public relations on line. If public opinion said marine parks weren't acceptable because the prohibitions would be lenient and public perception would say it this way.... The first public relations campaign was in the Bonavista area dealing with marine conservation areas. To us, that seems to have failed. I think the concerns of the Bonavista people are that their perception of the proposal was completely misaligned when the act came to be.

Let's be honest with Canadians. Let's deal with a marine parks act. Let's design what we want to design these areas to be and go into a consultation process. The parliamentary secretary has stated that this process that's designed here, the consultation process, seems to have worked, as he has stated, with Bonavista. It has worked. The people have gone in there. Let's be up front with them. Let's tell them that this could be a marine park, a core zone. There's a conservation area beyond that, and maybe a marine protected area could be added onto that by DFO, if they wish, on the external side. I think that's a common-sense approach.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, it's exactly the consultation process that led us to believe that we should change the name of parks to conservation areas. Indeed, we are responding to the desires of those consulted. To remove confusion...when you say parks, you fix things as they are, in people's minds. You don't allow logging in Banff necessarily, although that's perhaps not a good example.

The question is, it's a different concept from a park in that there's allowed use, continued use of commercial activity—shipping and fishing, for example. We believe that if we said parks, that would just add or bring back some of the confusion we're trying to dissipate with this. We're not supportive.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: For clarification, would the St. Lawrence-Saguenay Marine Park now be charged with having a name change, or is that something acceptable for that specific site?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's a separate bill, Mr. Chairman. Those are separate circumstances.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: That would be the only existing terminology in this country then, the St. Lawrence-Saguenay Marine Park.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, there might be other bills. This is a framework bill. Should there ever be another area designated by special legislation—it could happen if there is concurrent ownership of land and so forth. It's not impossible, and it might be at that point deemed that it would also be called a park, for whatever reason. We're talking about different legislation here. This is framework legislation for what we are referring to, and have been for five years now, as marine conservation areas. Some people may disagree, but that's the position of the government.

The Chairman: I now call for the vote on the NDP amendment, NDP2.

(Amendment negatived on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: As agreed by the committee, the preamble and the title are going to be stood for now; we'll come back to them at the end of the bill.

• 1155

I remind members too that G1c was stood, at the request of Mr. Laliberte.

(Preamble and clause 1 allowed to stand)

Mr. Inky Mark: If I could make a short comment before I leave, Mr. Chairman, I would like my motion not to be moved.

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No. Once they're on the table, they belong to the committee, don't they?

The Chairman: No. They are not on the table until they've been moved. It's perfectly in order for the proponent to move or not move, as he or she chooses.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And once a clause is approved, we can't go back to it? Let's be clear here. If we say “shall clause 2 carry”, Reform can't come back with amendments to it, not at committee stage. Is that correct?

The Chairman: Not unless we give unanimous consent to reopen.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

Mr. Inky Mark: Not at this stage. You can do what you wish at report stage.

The Chairman: You can do it at report stage.

Mr. Inky Mark: That's what happened with Bill C-55, remember?

The Chairman: Unless your motion has been defeated, you can move it at report stage. If it's not moved, then it doesn't matter what the result is. You can move it at report stage.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If it is moved and defeated, you can't bring it at report stage—correct?

The Chairman: That's correct—if it's moved and defeated.

Ms Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk): Or if it's moved and agreed to, you still can't bring it at report stage.

Mr. Inky Mark: You still can't bring it back.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can someone else then, Mr. Mark, move them?

The Chairman: That's up to Mr. Mark.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, no. Can someone else on the committee move them?

Mr. Inky Mark: No, because it's our amendment.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Well, it is, but someone else can move them.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'll move them if you like.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark, just for the record, I understand that you don't want your amendments moved by anybody else.

Mr. Inky Mark: That's right. I appreciate that. Thank you.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you.

I'll now call amendment G-2.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I guess this could be seen as a technical amendment suggested again by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and the Nunavut Marine Council. It essentially adds a non-derogation clause, which you have in front of you:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

It's quite straightforward.

The Chairman: Are there any comments or questions?

Mr. Ted McWhinney: It is clear that it takes no position one way or another on the content of section 35 or its interpretation.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes.

Mr. John Godfrey: Correct.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I voted in favour.

The Chairman: I realize that. It's on division because....

Mr. John Godfrey: On a point of order, we're about to come to R2. Mr. Mark isn't here, but we agreed previously that a certain number of these.... Were they to fall away automatically if—

The Chairman: If they are an immediate consequence of the preamble amendment defeat or the title amendment defeat, yes, they would fall away.

Mr. John Godfrey: Does that mean they could not then be reintroduced at the report stage?

The Chairman: That's correct.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So R2 falls away?

The Chairman: If you've got this list here, whatever has R1 in the bracket is consequential on what we discussed in the preamble or the title. So R2 is defeated and R3 is defeated.

• 1200

I now go on to amendment G2a.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, it's a question of the wording used. We wanted to be certain that there was agreement between the French and English versions. We are therefore proposing that the words "aire marine de conservation" be added to line 22 on page 2 of the French version.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to on division)

The Chairman: The next amendment is R4, which will not be moved, as advised by the—

A voice: Doesn't this one fall because of the first one?

Ms Susan Baldwin: Yes, because of R1.

The Chairman: R4, no. Excuse me; R4 is not moved.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Does somebody else want to move it? Nobody wants to move it? Well, we're all gentlemen and gentle ladies here.

The Chairman: Amendment R5 again is not moved. R5 falls away. It's consequential to R1.

Mr. John Godfrey: That wasn't the right to do trademarks?

The Chairman: Yes, it was a mistake. We registered the trademark instead of R1.

Mr. John Godfrey: That's actually a Reform-registered trademark—marine protected area.

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 3 agreed to on division)

(On clause 4—Purpose of establishment)

The Chairman: Amendment R6 on clause 4 falls away. It's defeated. I will now call G3.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment designed to ensure consistency.

[English]

The Chairman: We have adopted G2a, so G3 automatically carries.

R7 is consequential on R1 and falls away defeated. R8 is not moved. Therefore we go on to G3a. Could you speak to it, please, Mr. Bélanger?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is it required?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Who requires it?

The Chairman: Well, just in fairness to members.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): This is to clarify, Mr. Chairman, that ecosystems include what we're adding here: “the submerged lands and water column”.

The Chairman: I think we also added “in a sustainable manner”.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes.

(Amendment agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: I call amendment G3b.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This essentially makes clear the intention to establish different zones within a marine conservation area. That's clause 4 as it's written there.

• 1205

The Chairman: Do you want to speak, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes. Could....

The Chairman: Putting your mind in gear?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm putting my mind in gear.

These zones aren't categorized here. The dividing will be done how—alphabetically, geographically, by elevation, temperature of water?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Any of the above. No, I don't want to be facetious; I apologize for that.

That will be determined by regulation, on a case-by-case basis. You're getting into some technicalities here, so it's very difficult to cover all eventualities. So you're saying it shall be done, and then you will have a regulation flowing from this. Then, based on the regulation, it will be done on a case-by-case basis. All of this will refer back to the committee, as the bill requests.

The Chairman: Do you have anything to add, Mr. Lee?

Mr. Tom Lee (Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage): Monsieur Bélanger is correct when he said all of the above. Just for clarification, the zoning could be geographic and it also could be spatial, in the sense that you could zone a water column: the area 30 feet to 100 feet shall be managed in such and such way. So you could do that.

(Amendment agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 5—Establishment or enlargement)

The Chairman: I now call NDP3. Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This is pretty straightforward, on the establishment and enlargement, clause 5. I will so move, adding, after “Subject to section 7”, “and terms of applicable land claims agreements referred to in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982,” and continuing “for the purpose of establishing or enlarging a marine conservation area”, and so on. It carries on through.

It's consistent with the requests that were made from the witnesses, and I believe the government has made subsequent amendments to reflect that as well.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, this is a situation where we don't necessarily disagree with the intent. If we look at G4 and if we invite the honourable member to look at G4, I hope he'd be satisfied that indeed we achieved that intent in another manner, which we believe is perhaps a better manner, especially paragraph (c), which is that “the requirements of any applicable land claim agreement respecting the establishment of the marine conservation area have been fulfilled”. For that reason we would propose not to support this NDP amendment, because we're dealing with it in G4.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I understand the situation. I could pull the motion, if that's allowed. I think you need unanimous consent, since I introduced it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: And wait until we get to G4?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes. That way, it will save you voting against this one.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So you're pulling this one?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I can pull it, yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Okay.

The Chairman: Is there consent for Mr. Laliberte to withdraw the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

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

• 1210

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Now we can go back to the title.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Let's go back to NDP1.

The Chairman: Amendments R9 and R10 are not moved. I now call NDP4.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I won't introduce it.

The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent for—

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, I haven't introduced it at all.

The Chairman: You're not moving it. Sorry.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Which one is it?

The Chairman: Amendment NDP4 is not moved. I now call government G4.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Paragraph 5(2)(a) is a technical amendment to add the words “or an unencumbered ride of ownership”. Paragraph 5(2)(b) talks about provincial concurrence to establish a marine conservation area where the province has ownership of the lands or the seabed. We've already talked about paragraph 5(2)(c), which dealt with NDP3.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: R11 is defeated because it's consequential to R1.

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We didn't move R9 and R10.

The Chairman: No, they're not moved.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So you can't....

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If you want to move them, go ahead.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, but we shouldn't close clause 5.

The Chairman: No, we should close....

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): He said he didn't want to move them.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: But we can't close clause 5 until—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: He's aware of that.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Give him the option.

The Chairman: Excuse me. I clearly put the options forward to Mr. Mark. What he has chosen to do is not to move them and to let the clauses carry so that he can move them at report stage. That was his choice, and I think he made that quite clear. The clerk confirms and I think the record will show that's what he wants. If we stand them and they are defeated, he can't move them at report stage. He chose to leave it open so that he can move them at report stage.

With regard to clause 6, the three Reform amendments are not moved and R14 is consequential to R1 and is defeated, so we can call clause 6 as it stands.

(Clause 6 agreed to on division)

(On clause 7—Amendment to be tabled and referred)

The Chairman: Amendment R15 is not moved, so I will call G5. Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We were moving this after some suggestions by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Canadian Nature Federation, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Bonavista and Notre Dame Bays' feasibility study advisory committee. It is to fill in what was perceived to be a void before the establishment of a plan five years after the establishment of a marine conservation area by calling for an interim management plan that would set out objectives for managing the area until the plan could be established and approved by this committee.

• 1215

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?

(Amendment agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Amendment R16 is not moved.

(Clause 7 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chairman: Amendment R17 is defeated as consequential to R1.

(On clause 8—Management by Minister)

The Chairman: I will call NDP4a, which is a loose sheet in your amendment book. Mr. Laliberte, it's yours.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I so move. This amendment deals with subclause 8(1), Management by Minister, which says:

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

We're adding:

Concurrence of Minister.

(1.1) Other Ministers of the Crown must have the concurrence of the Minister in relation to all matters within their jurisdiction that affect marine conservation areas.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, we do not support this amendment. It's a little impractical. We would be restricting the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans by them having to seek the concurrence of the Minister of Canadian Heritage on any matter in their own jurisdiction. It's not something Heritage would wish upon itself, I presume, and we don't wish it on other departments as well. We'd rather have a balanced approach based on cooperation and respecting each other's jurisdiction. So we're not prepared to support this amendment.

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chairman: I will now call NDP5. Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This deals with the administration of public lands in marine conservation areas. The amendment says:

The Minister shall ensure that the administration, management and control of marine conservation areas added to Schedule 1 under subsection 6(2) are subject to the authority of existing and future bodies established pursuant to land claims agreements referred to in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

I so move.

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We do not support this proposed amendment for reasons going the other way from that of the previous one, in that this would be giving land claims bodies roles and responsibilities that are not within their legislative authority. They exist to provide advice or make recommendations to the minister, which the minister can accept, reject, amend, and so forth. This amendment would result in an interpretation that the minister would have relinquished his or her authority over the marine conservation areas we're trying to establish, and this is not what the land claims were set out to do. So we are not supportive for that reason.

• 1220

The Chairman: Do you want to add something, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes. I think the amendment itself explains:

are subject to the authority of existing and future bodies established pursuant to land claims agreements.

I think the minister, in maintaining and operating facilities, administration and management and control of the marine conservation areas, should respect the land claims agreements that may—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We've already dealt with that. We dealt with that through the derogation clause.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, but this is administration of lands.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, this puts the authority of the minister and the Marine Conservation Act essentially...as your words say:

subject to the authority of existing and future bodies established pursuant to land claims agreements

We can't be subservient to that when they're advisory bodies.

To deal with your concern about land treaties in respect of that, we've already done that. I'm referring back to our amendment G2, which said:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided

—and so on. We've dealt with that concern. It was a valid concern. We have respected that and we have addressed it. It just goes too far.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: We'll have to be insistent that the members consider this.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question on NDP5?

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chairman: I now call G6.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This is fairly straightforward. It was suggested to us by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Advisory Board, the Nunavut Marine Council, and the Canadian Nature Federation. We thought it could be accommodated and we are proposing this amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Maybe I can ask for a friendly amendment or a subamendment to this. We have dealt with this issue in a previous bill, Bill C-32, which has gone through committee stage and will be into report stage very soon.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Which bill is that?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: CEPA.

The terminology we agreed on through this bill, to be consistent with these acts, is “traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge” as opposed to “traditional ecological knowledge”. Aboriginal ecological knowledge refers to—and I think the intent of this is that a lot of the knowledge may be locked in the language. The language is orally based, and giving supplement to the scientific research and monitoring that might take place, the studies, you want to tap the Inuit language, the Cree language, the Micmac language, all these other languages that the aboriginal people have, and their knowledge is locked in this language. You have to be quite specific, because the media have also played on traditional knowledge as being industry-based. I don't think that's what we're referring to. I think we're referring to aboriginal traditional knowledge.

The Chairman: Excuse me. I just noticed that we're short of a quorum right now.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, we're not.

The Chairman: Yes, we are. We're short one person. So we'll need unanimous consent to carry on.

• 1225

We will continue.

Mr. Laliberte, so that we understand each other, what you want to suggest is a friendly amendment or a subamendment, preferably a friendly amendment, that would say—if it's accepted by the government, it saves a lot of time—traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge. Is that right?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I was just going to say that I absolutely agree with my honourable colleague. We did spend a lot of time on CEPA making sure we had the terminology consistent, and hopefully we can build on that. But I think in CEPA it was a situation in the bill where we were referring specifically to aboriginal knowledge.

Rather than say traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge, I think we need to say traditional ecological knowledge and then something like “including traditional aboriginal knowledge”, because I don't think we want one at the exclusion of perhaps other sources of traditional knowledge.

An hon. member: Like coastal communities.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes. So I think it's something we need to add as opposed to replace.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Couldn't we do it by “traditional and aboriginal”?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I wasn't involved in Bill C-32, so I'm at a bit of a disadvantage. We could perhaps entertain the notion of adding:

monitoring, and studies based on traditional ecological knowledge, including that of aboriginal people, in relation to marine conservation areas

Would that meet the consent of the members around the table?

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, if I may, if you look at your NDP6, I think it would have the same intent as your NDP6 if it was worded that way. By doing it the way Mr. Bélanger recommends, I think it would achieve the intent of your NDP6.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The difference being, Mr. Chairman, if I may, that in G6, by adding after “knowledge” the words “including that of our aboriginal people”, this is a subset of a larger set, which then becomes all-inclusive. I'm drifting here, but there may be traditional knowledge that is non-aboriginal.

Mr. John Godfrey: Coastal communities.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That way we cover all the bases.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I was just saying in the larger set you would include things like the traditional knowledge of coastal communities.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: My first attempt was to try to streamline this by making a friendly amendment that would delete the need for NDP6, but understanding the concerns the government side has raised, I think you can follow through with your amendment. Then I would ask that you consider supporting mine in addition, which would include “traditional knowledge of aboriginal people”. That's NDP6.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm going to throw the ball back, if I may, into your court. If we added in G6, after the word “knowledge”, the words “including that of aboriginal people”, would that not satisfy your NDP6 and at the same time basically cover the whole waterfront, so to speak?

The Chairman: That's what I was asking, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You were asking for a friendly amendment and we're saying yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Did you read NDP6?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes. That's exclusive. We're all-inclusive.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, no. If you bring yours, it's all-inclusive, and mine just clarifies—“traditional knowledge of aboriginal people”, which would be consistent with what we've been saying.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, but we're saying “scientific...monitoring, and studies based on traditional ecological knowledge”. That includes more than what you're saying, the traditional knowledge of aboriginal people. I'm trying to take the concept of what you're trying to say and incorporate it into a larger set so that all traditional knowledges could be considered.

• 1230

Mr. Rick Laliberte: What you're saying is “monitoring, and studies based on traditional ecological knowledge, in relation to marine conservation areas”—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: —which may include traditional knowledge of aboriginal people. We're saying the same thing.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We're saying the same thing, so let's agree on one amendment. You asked for a friendly amendment, and we're giving it to you.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: There it is.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, G6 would read, if I may:

may conduct scientific research and monitoring, and studies based on traditional ecological knowledge, including that of aboriginal people, in relation to marine

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: We don't want to lose the notion that we've used a phrase in CEPA. You have the traditional knowledge of aboriginal people, the knowledge of aboriginal people, or the traditional ecological knowledge. I think, Rick, you have to make a decision on what you want the wording to be for that part that's being included.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, if we're not going to agree on this, then we're going to stick to what we have, because we believe the amendment we have mirrors the wording in the Oceans Act. If it's a matter of making it the same as Bill C-32, we believe this does it. We also believe traditional ecological knowledge includes aboriginal knowledge. Our colleague wanted it to be more specific. We're prepared to accommodate that. But if that's not satisfactory, then we'll stick to our original G6, and I would ask for the question on it. Sorry, but you asked for a friendly amendment and we're offering it, but you're not accepting it.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I accepted the intent of it, but my concern is that the terminology should be consistent. It used to be called TEK, which is what you're using in a broad sense now, traditional ecological knowledge. People would throw that in, TEK, but it would be assumed that was traditional in terms of aboriginal language in that sense. In CEPA we changed it to traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge, TAEK. All I'm saying is that in this statement you would want to have this terminology in there. If you don't accept it, I can make a separate amendment.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We might want to stand it, because my information is different. My information is that this mirrors the Oceans Act, number one. Number two, Mr. Chairman, is that the amendment proposed by our colleague would be restrictive. Again, we're trying to be inclusive.

The Chairman: I understand. I'm just going to suggest something and hope everybody agrees so that we can move on. Perhaps we could say:

may conduct scientific research and monitoring, and studies based on traditional ecological knowledge, including traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, that's all I asked for.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's not good drafting, if I may be so bold, Mr. Chairman. Give me a minute, please.

Mr. Chairman, just to show some flexibility, we'll go with what you're suggesting, the condition being that we stick around until 1.30 p.m. and try to finish this.

The Chairman: I have a lot of sympathy. Mr. Laliberte has a lot of Cree blood in him, so if he wants something like this and feels very strongly about it, I'm very sympathetic to his cause.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Could you read that again for us so that we can make sure we have it properly?

The Chairman: It would say:

may conduct scientific research and monitoring, and studies based on traditional ecological knowledge, including traditional aboriginal ecological knowledge, in relation to marine

I understand that if this were the case, Mr. Laliberte, you would withdraw NDP6.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: That's right.

The Chairman: Okay. We'll now take the vote on G6, including the friendly amendment.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

• 1235

The Chairman: I understand that NDP6 is not moved.

I now call NDP7.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We support it.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So moved.

(Amendment agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: G6a falls away because it's similar to NDP7.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is that the case? Okay.

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 9—Management plans)

The Chairman: R18 is not moved.

I now call amendment G7.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: G7, Mr. Chairman, is mostly technical, to ensure that the language concurs in both French and English. It's fairly straightforward.

(Amendment agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: We can't put NDP8 forward because it's been covered in G7, nor can we put NDP9 forward.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Say that again.

The Chairman: NDP8 and NDP9 cover the same territory as G7.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are you referring to amendment G5?

The Chairman: No, to amendment G7.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Just give us a minute. The clerk is explaining it to Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: G7 was moved.

The Chairman: G7 was moved and carried, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes. While it was being moved I was familiarizing myself with NDP8 and preparing my arguments, because it deals with a specific wording I had left open in the preamble. I had asked that you leave open the issue of coastal communities.

The Chairman: Oh yes, that's right.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: That's the whole reason. Now you seem to have shut the door again. I didn't realize that G7 went to that extent, just by the fact that it started on an earlier line. It's broader in its change.

I believe the amendment the government is doing is specifically the line “relevant federal” and also adding “and bodies established under land claims agreements, and with any other persons and bodies”. You did not amend coastal communities.

The Chairman: It didn't amend coastal communities.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So NDP8 should still take place. The reason we're being not considered for NDP8 is because of the way the amendment was written. The actual amendment is only the specific words of “relevant”, the underlined areas.

• 1240

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, you can ask for unanimous consent to move NDP8. I think it clashes with G7. You can ask for unanimous consent and see.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: There is no unanimous consent. Sorry.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So my only alternative is to bring the argument to report stage in the House.

The Chairman: That's correct.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: When the government changed the definition of the specific areas that would be affected, the Great Lakes were part of this. I don't know if communities around the Great Lakes are referred to as “coastal”. That's another side of this. You might want to consider deleting “coastal” from this. I believe you want to deal in general and be broad on the issue of communities. I don't see why we're hung up on coastal communities, because there are other affected communities as well.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The reason I said.... Obviously it doesn't matter because we're having the debate anyhow. If we're going to have it, let's say so and have it.

The Chairman: You know, Mr. Bélanger, I believe in just giving people a chance.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Fine.

The Chairman: I think we are informal here. I don't want to stand on ceremony and procedure, so I think we should just give Mr. Laliberte a chance. I have served with him on a committee, and certainly there is no more well-meaning person. I think he believes deeply in what he puts forward, so we should just give him a chance to discuss it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In that case, please don't ask for unanimous consent.

The Chairman: No, no.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Since you've decided to overrule that, I will go along.

The Chairman: No, I asked for unanimous consent to move his amendment, which we decided clashes with.... But he's well entitled as a member to make any remarks he wants during the committee hearings, and that's what he's doing.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: That's all I'm saying, Mr. Bélanger. Since I won't have a chance here, I can take my argument into the House. I'll go there screaming and kicking and everything—whatever I can do. But “coastal communities” refers, in a broad context, to communities on saltwater bodies. But when you deal with the Great Lakes, do you deal with Sault Ste-Marie as a coastal community?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, may I?

The Chairman: Of course.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The notion of removing “coastal” would possibly require consultations with some communities that are beyond the scope of the marine conservation area envisaged. That being said, including the word “coastal” does not preclude the minister at any time from consulting with whatever community he or she wishes to consult.

I'm not convinced it's that significant, because the bill as it's crafted provides for such a wide range of possibilities for the minister, but it doesn't impose them. If you remove “coastal”, then you will have to consult someone in Manitoba on the establishment of a marine conservation area in B.C.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: They're affected.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: They can claim to be affected. Just as we're trying to be rational and open, there has to be a realization here that the intentions of the government are not evil. They aren't to railroad. We've proven that by the decision the minister announced of not proceeding with Bonavista. At some point there has to be some give and take here. It can't be all one way.

We're saying “coastal” here because that's where we should primarily consult. If we remove that, we will expand it so every marine conservation area will be able to consult the whole country. That's not the intent, I suppose, of what you're trying to do either.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I agree with both, but certainly just saying “communities” will be problematic. I understand the rationale behind it because it's in line with other amendments in terms of not restricting it. Is there any way we can add words like “relevant communities” or “coastal communities and other communities the minister deems relevant” or something like that?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We've added the word “relevant”.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Effective and relevant—in terms of the communities?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Let's flip it around. If you were a coastal community, at one point you'd want to have guarantees you are going to be and not everybody else in the whole country might be. You need to have a concern for those affected.

• 1245

Mr. Joe Jordan: You're right. Sorry. You have “relevant” in there.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, we do.

The Chairman: Okay. We have to move on.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, if you wish to proceed and ask again, I'll withdraw my opposition to unanimous consent.

(Amendment agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: So amendment G7 has been carried. If you ask for unanimous consent again to move NDP8, you will have to take the consequences of that happening.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay, I won't move NDP8. I understand the arguments and have heard them further. We'll push it on. It will give us time at the report stage. Perhaps I can convince the members at the report stage to accept a different terminology, but if I push it now and it's defeated it will be locked.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'll ask for unanimous consent to move NDP8. Will you grant me that?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, thank you.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So fair is fair.

The Chairman: So NDP8 is not moved.

NDP9 falls away because it's consequential on NDP5, which has been defeated. R19 has not been moved. We will now go on to G7a.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It's very technical.

The Chairman: I think G7a speaks for itself.

(Amendment agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: The division is there in soul.

I will now call NDP10. You had better grab it while it's going, Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

The Chairman: Are you moving NDP10?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I sure will.

The Chairman: All right. NDP10 has been moved.

(Amendment agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: R19 is consequential on R1 and is defeated. R20 is not moved.

I will now call NDP11.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This will change subclause 9(3) to read:

In order to protect marine ecosystems and maintain marine biodiversity, the primary considerations in the development and modification of management plans shall be the maintenance of ecological integrity and the precautionary principle.

This was part of the terminology used in Bill C-29 and we believe, in keeping with the consistency with Bill C-29 terminology, it would be very appropriate.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think this goes back to the definition of whether it's a park or a conservation area. If it were a park and that argument were carried today, that language would be perfectly appropriate and I would agree with it. But because it's a conservation area, including it would really put pressure on the multi-use zones of the area. So I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea. If these were parks it would be absolutely appropriate, but because we've already decided they are conservation areas, then I think it would be far too restrictive a statement to have in there.

So we're really debating again whether it's a park or a conservation area, and I think that debate has been had.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments or questions?

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I believe it was noted that I had moved this. Is that right?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I don't have any other arguments to make because it's pretty straightforward. I believe that under our international commitments, the ecological integrity is what we're here for, preserving our biological diversity. What would this whole exercise be for?

• 1250

And if you would permit it, I would ask for a recorded vote on this one.

The Chairman: Just hang on a minute, please. Mr. Lee has asked to intervene.

Mr. Tom Lee: There was reference to the agency bill where we did debate this, and the issue here is that the term “ecological integrity” is defined under the National Parks Act. It is included in the National Parks Act. If you use “ecological integrity” in this bill it cannot have the same meaning, because “ecological integrity” in national parks means there is no commercial type of activity or use. So if you use it in this bill, you have the problem of the term “ecological integrity” in two bills with different meanings. The purposes in these acts are quite different, and ecosystem management is a terminology.

The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Lee, would the operation of an outboard marine engine and the fact that there's oil going into the water go against the maintenance of ecological integrity? Is that the kind of restriction this term would cause to come into effect?

Mr. Tom Lee: Not unless there was pollution of a horrible nature. “Ecological integrity” as used in the National Parks Act means you do not harvest natural resources, period.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay, so it's a little more specific. Thanks.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question? Do you have something else to say?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, I just wanted to state that I know it does refer to the National Parks Act. I'm dealing with Bill C-29 here. In your view, are there no harvesting activities in Bill C-29?

Mr. Tom Lee: Bill C-29 is an administrative bill. The actual governance of whether things are harvested or not is under the individual acts, either the National Parks Act or, in this case, the Marine Conservation Areas Act.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Question.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: As I stated, I'd request a recorded vote on it.

The Chairman: All right.

(Amendment negatived: nays, 7; yeas, 1)

The Chairman: Amendment R21 is not moved. We now go on to G7b.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: This amendment was suggested to us by the Wildlife Management Council of Nunavut. Merely from reading the text, we see that the purpose is clear.

[English]

The Chairman: Any questions or comments on G7b?

(Amendment agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 10—Consultation)

The Chairman: I will now call amendment NDP12 on clause 10. It's the same thing, so do you want to move it or not move it? It's up to you.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No, I won't move it.

The Chairman: So NDP12 is not moved.

NDP13 falls away because NDP5 was defeated.

• 1255

I will now call amendment G8.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'll move it.

The Chairman: It's similar to the previous amendments.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Amendment R22 is not moved. I will now call amendment G8a.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We're simply proposing that the report must be tabled to Parliament.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to on division—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Amendment R23 falls away because of amendment R1, so I will call clause 10 as amended.

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 11—Area advisory committees)

The Chairman: For clause 11, amendment R24 is not moved. I will now call amendment G9.

Ms. Susan Baldwin: G7a is agreed to, so G9 is automatically carried.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, this would fall. We've had this argument before.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Amendment NDP14 is consequential on NDP5, which has been defeated. Amendment R25 is consequential on R1, which has been defeated. Amendment NDP15 is consequential on NDP5, which has been defeated.

I'll call clause 11 as amended.

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to on division )

(On clause 12—No disposition or use without authority)

The Chairman: I'll now call NDP16 under clause 12.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Chairman—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can I help, Mr. Chairman?

[Translation]

Because of the derogation clause, this amendment is no longer necessary.

[English]

The Chairman: You heard that, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Because of the derogation clause, it's not necessary anymore.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Number 15?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Number 16.

The Chairman: It's NDP16.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm just trying to catch up.

The Chairman: Sorry, Mr. Laliberte. I explained that NDP14 and NDP15 fell away because they were consequential on NDP5, which was defeated. We're now on NDP16 under clause 12. The parliamentary secretary has pointed out that because of the waiver clause that has been included this is redundant.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: He can move it if he wishes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Perhaps you could give him the correct reference.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: G3a?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: G2.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: G2?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes. It reads “nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate”.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'll introduce the motion because—

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It's taking me a while to understand what's happening, but we intended to move it so we'll follow through with that.

The Chairman: All right. NDP16 has been moved.

• 1300

Have you any comments, Mr. Laliberte?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No. Everybody understands the reasons for this being there.

The Chairman: All in favour of NDP16?

(Amendment negatived—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: R26 falls away because it's consequential on R1.

First we'll call clause 12 as amended, because clause 12.1 is a new clause. Will clause 12 as amended carry?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: Clause 12 wasn't amended.

The Chairman: No amendment got through, so will clause 12 carry?

(Clause 12 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: I will now call clause 12.1, and NDP17.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Did you adopt clause 12 just now?

The Chairman: Yes, but clause 12.1 is treated separately, so you deal with 12.1. It will be a new clause.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Okay.

It's one o'clock. Can we adjourn until later on? I have commitments as well.

The Chairman: Do you want to deal with this one before we close?

Mr. Rick Laliberte: No. It's past one o'clock, and it might take an extensive—

The Chairman: All right. So we don't have quorum.

We're coming back to the same room at 3.30, so you can leave all your papers here.

The meeting is adjourned.