HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 25, 2001

• 0905

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage,

[Translation]

which is here today to continue its consideration of Bill C-10.

[English]

Mrs. Allen, before we give you the floor, there are one or two brief items of business to be cleared up.

First, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Chair, in your absence last Tuesday, we received representation, not in the meeting but afterward, from several members of Parliament who were concerned about the MCTV cutbacks. This is a division of CTV. There's a letter they've asked us to present. It's not translated, so we won't be able to do it today, but essentially, they're appealing for action to be taken immediately to determine whether CTV Inc.'s new format, Northern Ontario Services, is a deviation from the specific terms and conditions of its television broadcast licences or from the spirit of those terms and conditions, or the material representations made to the CRTC in support of the applications for licence renewal. Our colleagues are very concerned about this and they're requesting that our committee, Canadian heritage, make a full inquiry into this matter at the earliest convenience. So I bring it to your attention.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mills.

What I would suggest is that the letter be tabled as soon as it's translated, and that we find time after we've finished with Bill C-10, probably next week, to tackle this issue.

There's also another issue that has been brought before us regarding the Cable Television Fund that several members brought up. There were letters written to us by the various broadcasting agencies. That also can be dealt with then.

Thirdly, I wanted to advise members that our request for travel in regard to the broadcasting study has been turned down and vetoed by the Canadian Alliance. It's a little ironic, Mr. Burton, because you wanted us to travel to B.C. This is twice now your representatives have vetoed our travel requests. What I would suggest to members is that maybe Tuesday, before we start our proceedings, we could entertain another resolution to bring it forward again to the House of Commons.

The researcher has just advised me they're working on a new travel schedule now to try to see... Apparently one of the objections was that we were not fitting in enough cities or something, so we'll have a resolution, as soon as possible, to bring back to the House. Obviously, if we don't travel, we might just as well kill the project, because to have a project when we can't visit the main infrastructures in Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver or visit the sites around the country would be an almost impossible task.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I think Mr. Burton would probably want to speak to this, because I can't believe he knew this happened.

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): I didn't know it happened, but I think it explains a bit of my frustration, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the committee not being able to get out to listen to my constituents and the British Columbia concerns. I hate to say it, I hope it's not tit for tat. I don't believe it is. I think there were other issues. But I think maybe you understand my frustrations, too, a little bit better.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, I have to speak on this.

The Chair: Let's not make it a debate, okay?

Mr. Dennis Mills: No, I don't want to make a debate, but I think it's very important the record stand that this past Tuesday we had close to 13 different representations from Mr. Burton's riding on this bill. It was a very productive session. And I can honestly tell you, Mr. Chairman, all 13 of those witnesses said the same thing. We could just as easily have had two.

The Chair: Thank you.

Without going any further now, we'll start the study of Bill C-10.

• 0910

We are pleased to welcome a witness from the Village of Port Clements, British Columbia, Ms. Joan Ann Allen, the mayor.

Ms. Allen, you have the floor.

Ms. Joan Ann Allen (Mayor of Port Clements, British Columbia): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to present a rural coastal perspective regarding Bill C-10. I'm speaking here today on behalf of the people of Port Clements as well as on behalf of the governing bodies of the communities of the Queen Charlotte Islands Haida Gwaii and the Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District in B.C. I'm here to express their strong opposition to the enactment of Bill C-10 as it stands.

The Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District covers almost 20,000 square kilometres of northwestern coastal B.C. Just over 25,000 people live here, with two-thirds of the population centred in the city of Prince Rupert. The region is economically dependent on resource extraction, primarily logging and fishing.

I also attended the Union of British Columbia Municipalities in Vancouver, a conference with almost 1,000 delegates representing 185 municipalities and regional districts, who unanimously agreed this bill needed to have the B.C. government's input.

I have the privilege of being the duly elected mayor of Port Clements, one of the four municipalities within Skeena Queen Charlotte Regional District. Port Clements is one of the smallest incorporated communities in B.C., with fewer than 600 residents, roughly 10% of the total population on Haida Gwaii Queen Charlottes. It's over 110 kilometres off the north coast of B.C. and 750 kilometres by air north of Vancouver. It fronts on Masset Inlet, an arm of the Pacific Ocean extending into Graham Island, one of the two largest islands of the Queen Charlotte Haida Gwaii.

About one-third of the island's 6,000 residents are Haida. They have a thriving, rich culture. Among many other of the island residents, the Haida practise subsistence hunting and fishing. These aboriginal rights of access are not respected by Bill C-10.

Like many residents of small, rural towns in Canada, we struggle to keep our community economically viable. Our distance from major centres combined with a small population base means our cost of living is high. We have worked to move away from dependency on primary resource extraction industries, yet these industries and the high-paying jobs they provide are what make it possible for families to live here.

We are intimately linked with all other island residents in this struggle, because the essential services and amenities our community is too small to provide are collectively sustained by our neighbouring communities. These services include high schools, hospitals, banking, retail clothing outlets, and recreation centres.

Over the past two decades the economic vitality of Haida Gwaii Queen Charlottes has been steadily zapped. CFS Masset was downsized, removing 600 men, women, and children from that community. A moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration was imposed.

The fishing industry has been severely damaged by declining stocks. The commercial fishery for abalone closed ten years ago and current information shows that depleted stocks have not recovered.

The Cinola mine project had to be abandoned when falling gold prices made it uneconomic. The South Moresby forest replacement account, a $23 million fund created to offset the economic impact of establishing Gwaii Haanas park reserve in South Moresby Island, has been in limbo for the last year.

Our most important and productive industry, logging, has been hardest hit. Vast tracts of productive forests have been yanked from timber harvesting areas to create parks, ecological preserves, wilderness, and recreation areas.

Timber harvesting regulations have been rewritten and endlessly complicated so that applying them extends planning by years. The Ministry of Forests staff shortages and cutbacks make timely plan reviews and approvals impossible.

• 0915

Finally and most critically, the softwood lumber tariff recently imposed by the U.S. threatens to eliminate 12,000 jobs on the north coast and thoroughly destabilize our local, regional, and provincial economies.

Port Clements residents can vouch personally for the devastating impact of a tax on our logging industry. Major local employers, including Weyerhaeuser and Husby Forest Products, went on indefinite shutdown in June 2001, putting over 200 people out of work. Many live in Port Clements, and most support single-income households.

We are anticipating further job losses in local stores, restaurants, other service-based businesses over the next few months, as our island economy sags under this burden. It is the cumulative effect of these events that causes us to have grave concerns about Bill C-10 and its impact on the economy of the Queen Charlotte Islands Haidi Gwaii and the north coast.

Our concerns regarding the potential economic impact of Bill C-10 centre on the following.

The offshore oil and gas reserves under Hecate Strait are known to be considerable. A 1998 geological survey of Canada estimates there are 9.8 billion barrels of oil, and 25 trillion cubic feet of gas. Exploring this potential is essential to the economic survival of the entire north coast of B.C., including the Queen Charlotte Islands Haida Gwaii, and would strengthen a flagging provincial economy.

Crab fishing and fish processing remain important employers in our island economy. After years of effort, two custom seafood processing plants, owned and operated by local residents, have opened. They are expanding their range of seafood products offered by developing European and Asian markets for seafood not usually eaten locally. Sport fishing and hunting are growing. Potentially lucrative industries are attracting European as well as American and Canadian sportsmen. Local motels, restaurants, guides and suppliers all stand to profit.

The prospect of further limiting fishing areas and further restricting fisheries, by creating ecological preserves, will kill these nascent secondary industries before they are fully established.

Finally, I am most disturbed by the fact that this proposed legislation was neither proposed nor created by coastal community residents. I understand that at first the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, charged with reviewing this critical document, did not plan to hear any witnesses from B.C. We are yet again faced with responding to legislation created, reviewed and potentially approved by people who don't live there and who will never have to live with its direct human consequences.

Haida Gwaii, the Queen Charlotte Islands, is the site of the Gwaii Haanas park reserve, which we were assured would replace lost logging jobs with new ecological tourism opportunities. This is a wilderness park reserve. It is never going to be a tourist mecca, as access is controlled and limited to protect the natural environment. Island residents themselves have permanently lost free access to the area and all its resources.

Access to the South Moresby forest replacement account, set aside to reduce the economic impact of the park reserve, ended last year, and the fate of that fund rests with the provincial and federal governments.

The opinions and concerns of those whose livelihoods may be altered or removed by these decisions should not be an afterthought. All affected communities need to have their right to consultation respected, by being involved from the beginning of the drafting of legislation.

We are not reassured by a proposed provincial veto of recommended marine conservation areas. It means we must constantly monitor and lobby to protect our access to resources, an expensive and time-consuming proposition for Haida and non-Haida communities on Haida Gwaii Queen Charlotte Islands.

In conclusion, I would emphasize that no demonstrable need exists for this legislation at this time. Existing federal and provincial statutes and regulations, of which 23 are duplicated, should be adequate to deal with any possible threats to the environment.

• 0920

This legislation does not specify which areas are to be protected, does not specify criteria for excluding areas from development, and does not specify how the public is to be involved in decision-making. It is clear that decisions will be made by bureaucrats, whose personal philosophies may be in complete conflict with the democratic will of the electorate.

If the political will is to forge ahead with this bill, then at least write into it clear and enforceable criteria and guidelines, to instruct and inform those who must enact it. Additionally, allow enough power to locally affected communities, so they may control development decisions in their area.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Allen.

Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you, Mrs. Allen. I know it's been a long trip and tiring, but I appreciate you being here and I appreciate your presentation.

Maybe just to clarify so there's no misunderstanding, Haida Gwaii is the native name for the Queen Charlotte Islands. Don't confuse it with Gwaii Haanas, which is the proposed park surrounding South Moresby Island, which is in the southern part of the Queen Charlottes. That's correct, Mrs. Allen?

Regarding South Moresby, what sort of input did the local populace have when that specific area was created by Parks Canada?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: There were consulted for years and years.

Mr. Andy Burton: But were they listened to? Do you feel it was a good process?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: Yes, I think so.

Mr. Andy Burton: It was. Okay. That's good to hear. What you're looking for then is a similar process regarding any other proposed marine conservation areas. Is that correct?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: Exactly.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you.

Obviously, we all agree with protecting the environment. We're all environmentalists, or we wouldn't live in the kinds of areas we do live in. We love the beauty of the area, the ability to hunt and fish and just enjoy things. But the economic concerns are also very great, not only on the Queen Charlottes, but on the north coast. Can you expand on that a little bit?

There are things called viable communities, and when you drop below a certain level, as you mentioned, your hospitals, schools and vital services become threatened. I'm not sure if the need to expand our ability to utilize the resources we have, rather than contracting those abilities because of the failing viability of communities, is clearly understood. Can you expand on that, as the mayor of a small community?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: We don't have unemployment on the island. When your job ceases, you leave and you leave. We have vacant houses everywhere, all over the island. As the population shrinks, the Haida, who have lived there for generations and want to stay there, are not going to have any services.

The ferry service right now to the mainland, which is Prince Rupert, 90 miles away, is three days a week, as long as there isn't a storm. We have Air Canada service to South Moresby Island every day. But it's getting more and more touchy because fewer and fewer people are using these services.

It was an enormous blow when DND pulled out of Masset. They went from 385 staff down to I think 25. It was a naval base for distant early warning. They provided the only facilities in Masset that are there now—a recreation centre, a curling rink, the tiniest pool in the world, and weight rooms and things.

Masset has been trying to keep these facilities going. They were given funds to do it, but the more your population shrinks, the less chance you have of surviving.

There is still good fishing there, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is doing a relatively good job of controlling it.

I think our objection to the bill is it adds another layer of bureaucracy that isn't as aware of the conditions as Fisheries and Oceans are. I don't believe Parks should take over the control of fishing, but maybe I'm wrong.

• 0925

Right now around the islands we have two no-take zones for cod. On the west coast we have a proposed area on Bowie Seamount to protect this seamount. It's an underwater volcano, and it comes up to within 75 feet of the surface of the water. It's a wonderful thing for biologists to sit out there and study, but still you're putting fishermen out of work. I don't know why they can't coexist. It should be possible to do the scientific research at the same time.

As to Gwaii Haanas, there's one large island, Graham Island, which now is still viable. The other island, which is almost attached, is Moresby. Half of that is gone. It's now a park, and you can't get to it; the local inhabitants can't get to it. You have to take a course for a day or two before you're allowed to go.

There is a marine park to be—

The Chair: Can we just move on? We're going to run out of time.

Mr. Burton, you have one last question.

Mr. Andy Burton: As to local input strengthening the ability... As you say, if the political will to push this bill through is there, it will happen, but we would like to see some changes. How would you see strengthening the wording regarding local input? I'm quite sure that you would like to see guarantees that if and when MCAs are established or even proposed, the input will be made prior to establishment and will involve some guarantees of local input from affected areas. What are your comments on that?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: I happen to know that the one that is established on the north shore of Lake Superior took ten years of consultation involving an advisory committee from that area made up of the local residents, yet it's still not in effect. This is the type of thing we need, namely a local community committee, an advisory committee, of all the stakeholders, so they can have input into it.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Plamondon, do you have any questions?

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): No.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

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

Thank you, Ms. Allen, for coming out.

The chairman stopped you just as it was getting interesting, where you were going to talk about the Gwaii Haanas marine park. You were starting to say something about the park. Could you tell us a little about what's going on with the marine park in your area?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: When the Gwaii Haanas park was established, it was also on record that there would be a marine conservation area around the whole. As far as I know, it hasn't been done yet, but it is slated to be. So there goes half the Queen Charlottes.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Have you been involved at all in any of those consultations on the proposed marine park?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: No, they happened quite a few years ago.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: So those consultations already took place?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: Yes, they did.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I just don't understand. Part of the rationale for creating the park was to ensure that there was a marine conservation area within it. Am I right on that?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: No. It's all around the outside of Moresby Island. I have maps. Graham Island is at the top, Moresby is down here, and the whole bottom is cut off and turned into a park. But there is also a marine park to be established around the outside of the island.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Are you aware of any like consultations that have been going on with respect to that marine park in the last few years?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: No, I'm not.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: You said you felt the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was doing a pretty good job monitoring the fishing. At the time, you said that one of your concerns was, why let Parks get involved? I don't know if you were aware—and I think it's a valid concern—that in fact the act provides that with respect to any kind of fishing or aquaculture, the Minister of Canadian Heritage must actually consult with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on any type of regulation with respect to fishing. Does that allay any of your concerns at all?

• 0930

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: No, it doesn't really, because there are such distances involved. The B.C. government has enough trouble staying on top of all the legislation. I suppose it's possible.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: The reason I asked is that it's kind of positive on the DFO side. I just wanted to assure you somewhat that with anything in respect to fishing there has to be an agreement.

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: We all complain. The fishermen complained bitterly about DFO, but now that it has come to the crunch, they're saying, well, they're not doing such a bad job.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: When they're afraid someone else is going to take over...

Mr. Andy Burton: They're better than Parks Canada.

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: That's right.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: That's why. You actually raised a similar point with respect to subclause 16(2), where regulations must be made in consultation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The same applies with respect to the management plan they talk about putting together, where the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must have an agreement as well, so that's another agreement that would have to be put in place.

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: The Haida had a huge fishing fleet several years ago. Now they've sold their licences. They had a 75% employment rate in Skidegate at the bottom of the island; now they have 75% unemployment.

They are moving into charter boats and charter fishing, and that's what we are pursuing on the islands. It's a growing, viable industry, especially with the Europeans who come. There are two or three very good rivers where all the salmon go to spawn. This is the type of fishing they like, and it's growing and growing. We're trying to replace the logging industry. We know it's on its last legs.

The Chair: You have one last question.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: A concern that has been raised by yourself again today and by a number of the witness who have been before us is one about ensuring that the province is consulted. I'd like to assure you that this the key. If we're looking to amend this legislation and make it better, do you have any specific recommendations as to how we could reassure you that nothing will be done without the coastal communities' input and the province's consent?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: Could you guarantee they'll talk to the Government of B.C. before doing anything? I think this is vital. It's such a different lifestyle.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I think that's the intent, and I know that's a concern. I'm trying to find a way we can address that concern so as not just to assure you on a personal level as we speak but to ensure that it's in the legislation.

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: The province of B.C., for as long as I can remember, was a have province, and the transfer payments went flowing down to the east. Now that we are getting knocked back down the ladder... I mean, we've been hit; the province of B.C. has been hit so hard by the mining, then the logging, and now the fishing, and it just goes on and on and on. We need a chance to recover.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I thank you very much, Ms. Allen, for coming to talk.

The Chair: Mr. McNally, do you have a question?

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, PC/DR): You talked at the end of your presentation about the creation of enforceable guidelines. Could you just focus a bit more on that, on what you meant? You said it, and that was good.

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: A short article in our local paper just before I left said that the RCMP and Parks were having a dispute over who was going to manage on Gwaii Haanas, who was going to enforce the regulations. Parks wouldn't do it; they had this problem because they wanted guns. So right now the RCMP is charged with enforcing the law in this park—you have no idea how hard it is to get to it—and our RCMP on the island is already strapped anyway.

• 0935

The regulations in the forest practices code... This is sort of what we're talking about—a book like this and then it's amended and amended and amended. I agree that the input of environmental groups is necessary, but it got so ridiculous. My son's in engineering. Every week he would be going back out there and they'd be doing their layouts all over again because there would be new changes to the legislation to satisfy the environmental groups. This is the same thing that we don't want to happen.

Mr. Grant McNally: So you're worried that if there are not specifics laid out either in regulation or in legislation, that will happen?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: Yes. And it has to be kept simple.

Mr. Grant McNally: And that it will have an impact on the economy, as you said earlier.

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: Yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Mrs. Allen, you had made reference to a fund that was created upon the development of the Haida Gwaii park, $28 million, and you had indicated that there have been some complications accessing that fund. I know it's not uncommon to have the carrots dangled sometimes to encourage people to be a little accepting of certain initiatives. Have there been any initiatives that have resulted from the establishment of this fund? And what seems to be the problem with accessing it any further?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: No one seems to know where it is. Our MPP, Bill Belsey, has been tracking it. It was used for a few years, but just for studies and for what the people on the islands basically considered to be of no value whatsoever. Apparently the money went to the B.C. government, and we're trying to access it. We were hoping to set it up as funding for business grants. We haven't had much luck finding out where it is. But that's what it was originally set up for—to fund businesses to replace the logging on Moresby Island. Moresby Island in the 1800s and the early 1900s was a thriving island, with coals mines, iron smelting, and canneries. And now it's turned into a park and the whole bottom is not accessible.

The Chair: Any other questions?

Mr. Andy Burton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I may, a couple of quick ones.

I believe the government you're referring to with this fund was the previous government of British Columbia, the NDP government, which has now been replaced.

Mrs. Joan Ann Allen: Absolutely.

Mr. Andy Burton: Hopefully some of these things will be sorted out. And she was referring to the MLA Bill Belsey, not the MP, just to clear that up.

When South Moresby or Gwaii Haanas was created—and it's a number of years ago now—I think there were some expectations, in terms of direction or thoughts from Parks Canada, that the jobs created in the park would replace all the logging. Now, tell me what happened there. Were the expectations met? And if not, in what way were they not met?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: No, they weren't met, and they aren't being met. Tourism was supposed to replace the logging; it just has not. It's not possible. It's too tightly controlled by a group that sits on the other island, on Queen Charlotte. I know that yachts have come out from Vancouver. They were so disappointed and upset that they said they were never coming back there. It was because of the reception they got and the fact that they had to take a course to learn how to go and respect the environment. It just isn't working.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: The point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect—I've also lived all my life in a resource-based economy, in northern British Columbia—is that you just cannot replace high-paying, resource-based jobs, whether it be fishing or forestry or mining or oil and gas, with tourism-based jobs. Tourism is a great sort of second-line economy. We all think it's wonderful. But you cannot maintain viable communities in relatively remote areas based on tourism. You can't do it. We have to have the ability to extract the resources in an environmentally sound manner, a proper manner, to create those jobs we need to maintain viable communities.

• 0940

I think, Mayor Allen, you would agree with me on that.

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: Totally. Fallers make $400 in a day, and they're not going to get that in the tourism industry. It's a totally dangerous job, and they do deserve it, but you can't expect them to work for $7 an hour. It's just not working.

The Chair: Ms. Allen, can I ask you one question and make this point?

Mr. Burton referred to South Moresby and the extensive consultations that were there. You also brought up Lake Superior, where there's an advisory council and a lot of consultation. Of course the difference is there is no MCA slated for your area or any other area of B.C. There's none. In Lake Superior they've actually identified one, so they have an advisory council.

I don't know if you've got the legislation in front of you.

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: Yes.

The Chair: Subclause 10(1):

The Minister shall provide opportunities for consultation with relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies and affected coastal communities, aboriginal organizations... and bodies that the Minister considers appropriate in the development of marine conservation area policy, the establishment and modification of marine conservation areas...

Now, I agree that this type of wording is a little lax,really, because it says “shall provide opportunities”. If this clause were to say that the minister “will consult”—which I believe it should—then doesn't that reach the objective that you seek, that the minister be forced to consult? So if tomorrow there were to be an MCA in your region or any other region of B.C., it would follow exactly the same process as South Moresby or Lake Superior. It would have to. Would you find comfort if this clause said the minister has to consult, not just provide opportunities?

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: I agree. That would be acceptable—the minister “shall consult”. I get confused, because there are 29 marine parks being established across Canada.

The Chair: No, you see, Ms. Allen—

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: I know this is a bill.

The Chair: It is purely enabling legislation. There is nothing contemplated here.

Ms. Joan Ann Allen: I realize that.

The Chair: It's just to give the powers to the government to look at the possibility of putting one together. If people don't agree, it just doesn't happen.

It doesn't happen in Newfoundland. Two or three years ago, when we had Bill C-48, there was an MCA—a marine conservation area—slated for eastern Newfoundland. The aquaculture industry was fiercely opposed to it. Several other community groups didn't oppose it, but it just didn't go forward. There was no consensus. You can't just force the thing to happen. So that was the case. It just got dropped.

Are there any other questions from members before we thank Mrs. Allen? Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: Mr. Chairman, I think that's very much the concern. There has to be absolute assurance that this consultation will take place—not may or shall, but will: that there will be some clarification of the groups that will have input; that there are guarantees that local communities will be part of the process and not just some ad hoc committee made up from God knows where.

I just want to reiterate that our concern with clause 13 is this ability to replace jobs. We have to have the ability to utilize the resources that are there. If it's oil and gas, so be it, it's oil and gas. That's our concern with clause 13. We just can't allow roadblocks to be put in the way.

• 0945

The federal-provincial jurisdictional aspects of it I raised on Tuesday also have to be clarified. We have to clearly understand that if it's provincial jurisdiction, the province will be consulted. But it's not clear, in my mind anyway, if it's federal jurisdiction—and it apperas a lot of the north coast may very well be. This also needs to be clarified before this bill is finalized.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Allen, we really appreciate you coming all this way. You've helped us. You've been very forthright and told us the problems of your area. We are extremely conscious of what you said. Thank you very much for coming all this way.

Now there are two options. We have officials from the ministry to appear before us and then at 11 o'clock we have a video conference with people in Vancouver, British Columbia. We can break now until 11 o'clock, or we can hear the officials and then break afterwards before the video conference.

We'll proceed with the officials.

Would you come forward, please, Mrs. Katz?

I'd like to introduce the representative from the Parks Canada Agency, Mrs. Susan Katz, director of the legislation and policy branch; Mr. Nik Lopoukhine, director general of the national parks directorate; Mr. Kevin McNamee, a director of the parks establishment—I believe Mr. Latourelle isn't here, Mrs. Katz; and Ms. Daphne Porter, legal counsel for the agency.

Who wants to lead off?

Mr. Nik Lopoukhine (Director General, National Parks Directorate, Parks Canada Agency): I would hand the microphone over to Mrs. Katz to make the presentation.

The Chair: All right, thank you.

Ms. Susan Katz (Director, Legislation and Policy Branch, Parks Canada Agency): Thank you.

We have tabled additional copies today of the presentation our CEO, Mr. Tom Lee, gave in May when he appeared before the standing committee. I propose to provide an overview of the bill and try to address some of the concerns that have been brought before the committee.

First, I should perhaps say a few words about Parks Canada and our mandate. Parks Canada establishes and manages a family of protected heritage areas that include national parks, national historic sites, historic canals, Canadian heritage rivers, and national marine conservation areas.

Our mandate is to protect and present these nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage and to foster public understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment of these special places. Together, these protected heritage areas make an important contribution to the mission of the Department of Canadian Heritage by engendering pride in Canada.

• 0950

The addition of national marine conservation areas to this family of protected areas fills a significant gap, since Canada's oceans and Great Lakes play a significant role in defining our economy, our culture, and our identity.

The goal of the NMCA's program is quite simply to protect and conserve a representative sample of each of Canada's 29 marine regions in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans, and the Great Lakes.

I would like to clarify a point. In the presentation we have provided you with a map that describes each of the marine regions, if you look around the coastline and the Great Lakes. Our mission then is to establish a marine conservation area to represent each of those regions.

In representing each of those regions we would seek to identify a site that provides a good representation of the features of that region. When we establish these areas we're generally looking to establish an area that might represent perhaps 3% to 5% of the total area of the region. So the boundaries you see identified on this map identify the boundaries of the regions, not the boundaries of the marine conservation areas.

The map identifies for you in a couple of insets some of the areas where we are active at present and where we have some federal-provincial agreements in place. Those areas represent perhaps 3% to 5% of the total region. I wanted to make this clarification, because I know concern has been raised as to just how large these areas would be in terms of the region overall.

Marine conservation areas are not simply “parks on the water”. The first priority in managing national parks is ecological integrity—in other words, maintaining these areas in a state essentially unaltered by human activity. Marine conservation areas are quite different. They are multiple use areas where activities such as hunting, fishing, and aquaculture are appropriate and would indeed continue.

The Canada National Parks Act is not the appropriate legislative tool for our marine program. It is too restrictive and poorly suited to the complexities of the marine environment. This is the reason the government has tabled Bill C-10.

The goal is to meet human needs in the use of marine areas without compromising the health of their ecosystems. Ideally these areas will be models of ecologically sustainable use.

At the same time, comprehensive protection measures are also required. While Parks Canada can take a lead coordinating role, it cannot manage these areas on its own. The jurisdiction of other government departments and the management of activities such as fishing and commercial shipping must be respected.

In this regard, I might also mention that the management of fisheries within marine conservation areas would continue to be managed by the Minister of Fisheries. The legislation provides that if the Minister of Canadian Heritage wishes to propose regulations that would affect fishing within a marine conservation area, the Minister of Canadian Heritage would have to seek the consent of the Minister of Fisheries in order to proceed with such a regulation. So the management of fisheries overall within these areas continues to be done by the Minister of Fisheries.

Similarly, marine conservation areas can't succeed without the cooperation and support of local people. Local residents and affected user groups must be involved in the planning and management of marine conservation areas. If local people do not support a marine conservation area, Parks Canada will look elsewhere.

We have in fact an example that I believe was brought to the attention of the committee when it first had hearings on this bill in 1999. Parks Canada had launched a feasibility study in the Bonavista Bay area in Newfoundland. As we went further into the study, it was clear that broad community support for the marine conservation area was not there, so the feasibility study was terminated.

Here is a brief outline of the legislation: the legislation speaks to how marine conservation areas would be established; how they would be managed; the types of prohibitions that would exist; regulation-making authorities; and finally, enforcement.

• 0955

In terms of establishment, I'd like to stress first of all that the bill is framework legislation; it is enabling legislation. It provides the means to establish and manage marine conservation areas, but in and of itself it will not create any. The schedules to the legislation are blank. A number of people have drawn attention to this fact. The reason for this is that the government does not yet have any proposals for marine conservation areas that are ready to be tabled in Parliament.

The legislation sets out a process by which areas are formally established—that is to say, the manner by which they are formally brought under the protection of the legislation. It is an Order-in-Council process, where an Order in Council would be tabled in Parliament by the minister and referred to the appropriate standing committees of both the House and the Senate, in order for the standing committees to have an opportunity to look at the proposal.

Before a proposal is presented to Parliament, there's a great deal of work done with local communities. There's a great deal of science preceding the establishment of these areas and a great deal of consultation with local advisory committees, and an interim management plan is developed as well.

When the proposal is presented to Parliament, it will include a report on consultations that have brought the proposal to that stage, as well as an interim management plan.

I know there have been concerns expressed that these areas could be established very quickly, without any local support, by an order of cabinet. In fact, when the minister presents a proposal to Parliament, reporting on the consultations and tabling an interim management plan, which would have had to have been developed in consultation with local communities, is required.

There are in fact two ways NMCAs can be established. An NMCA can be established with full status as an NMCA. At the same time, if aboriginal people have a claim to any of the area in which it is proposed that the NMCA be established and that claim is accepted by the government for negotiation, then the area would be established and managed as a reserve, pending the settlement of any claim with aboriginal people.

Prohibitions in the legislation include a prohibition with regard to non-renewable resource extraction and one with regard to disposal at sea. Disposal at sea would be prohibited throughout a marine conservation area, but there are exceptions provided for in the legislation, such as in emergency situations or when human life is at risk.

Clause 16 of the bill sets out a number of regulation-making authorities. These authorities would be used to fill in gaps in other statutes. As I mentioned, in the marine environment there are already authorities exercised by the Minister of Fisheries and by the Minister of Transport. These statutes of the Fisheries Act and the Canada Shipping Act were never intended to cover the special requirements of marine conservation areas, such as the protection of cultural resources, or visitor safety, or the establishment of management zones and the control of activities within those zones.

So the regulation-making authorities set out in the bill are meant to complement the regulation authorities in other statutes. Any regulations that impact on the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Transport must be made on the recommendation of both the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the affected minister.

Finally, on enforcement, the enforcement measures in the bill are similar to those in other environmental statutes, such as the Oceans Act and the Canada Wildlife Act.

There is a long legislative history to the bill, which goes back to the very early days of our establishing marine conservation area policy. Our first policy dates from 1986. It was revised in 1994, again on the basis of very broad-ranging consultations. In 1996 the Prime Minister made a commitment to table a bill for the establishment and management of marine conservation areas. Consultations on that legislation were undertaken in 1997, and in 1998 Bill C-48 was tabled.

• 1000

A number of amendments were made to Bill C-48 in 1999 to reflect the concerns that were brought forward by the witnesses at that time. The bill you see before you now reflects all of the amendments that were made by the standing committee in 1999. Perhaps I might just touch on the major amendments that were made by the committee at that time.

First of all, a non-derogation clause was added to the legislation. Several witnesses had recommended that a non-derogation clause with regard to aboriginal and treaty rights should be included in the bill. Constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights exist independently of any act of Parliament, regardless of whether or not a non-derogation clause actually appears in the particular statute. However, the government added a non-derogation clause for greater certainty and to provide greater comfort to aboriginal people.

Provincial concurrence: Some concern had been expressed, both in the House of Commons and before this standing committee, that provincial jurisdiction could in some way be infringed by this legislation. That is certainly not the case. In fact if a province owns the seabed in an area where Parks Canada proposes to establish a marine conservation area, an agreement would be required to transfer administration and control of those lands to the federal government. Without it, the proposed marine conservation area could never proceed. For greater certainty there is now a requirement in the bill to make it very clear.

Requirement for an interim management plan: It had been stated before the standing committee—and I believe the same concern has been raised this week—that local communities can't be expected to indicate whether they support or oppose a marine conservation area unless they have some sense of how the area is going to be managed, and that the requirement in the bill for preparing a management plan five years after establishment seems a rather long time to wait to know how the area is going to be managed. As a result, there is now a requirement in the legislation that when a proposal comes before Parliament an interim management plan be tabled at the same time. So when the feasibility study is concluded and there is a positive result, the next stage would be to prepare the interim management plan. Not only are local communities being asked to give some indication of whether or not they support the establishment of the area in principle, but they would also be able to see very clearly how the area is in fact going to be managed.

Finally, there was an amendment in 1999 with regard to zoning in marine conservation areas. There were two major concerns that had been brought before the standing committee at that time. One was whether or not marine conservation areas would indeed be multiple-use areas. Would fishing and aquaculture continue to occur? On the other hand, there were also concerns from other groups who were worried that there would not be sufficient protection provided in marine conservation areas, for example, to protect critical spawning grounds or cultural sites or whale calving areas.

Bill C-10 makes it quite clear that within a marine conservation area there must be at least two kinds of zones: there will be zones for multiple use and there will be zones that afford special protection.

There continue to be a number of questions raised about the legislation, and perhaps I'll just address several of them here. One is, should not the standard of management be ecological integrity, as it is in national parks? Managing for ecological integrity is an approach that strives to protect ecosystems in a state essentially unaltered by human activity. It is the first priority in managing national parks. But as I mentioned a few moments ago, marine conservation areas are not parks on the water. They are meant to be models of ecologically sustainable use, and it would not be appropriate in the marine bill to establish ecological integrity as the first priority in management.

• 1005

Another concern that has been raised is whether or not there is any unnecessary duplication among federal programs. The marine program is in fact part of a larger commitment to establish a comprehensive network of protected areas in Canada's oceans. There is not any unnecessary duplication among these federal programs. DFO establishes marine protected areas primarily to protect and conserve specific or threatened marine resources and habitat. Environment Canada establishes national wildlife areas and marine wildlife areas to protect seabird habitat. These are single-purpose designations. Parks Canada has a broader purpose. It is a heritage conservation program, and it is ideally suited to the mandate of Canadian Heritage and to Parks Canada in particular.

In addition, the federal government has established an interdepartmental steering committee on marine protected areas to ensure that each of the three federal agencies are working together. We are very closely involved in establishing areas, and to the extent that we can each support and complement each other's goals, we work to that purpose.

A question has been raised about whether or not the bill intrudes on provincial jurisdiction. As I've mentioned, we now have a very clear statement in the act that requires an agreement with a province, where the province owns the seabed, before the NMCA can be established. In addition, the federal government does not intend to act unilaterally to designate a marine conservation area where jurisdiction over the seabed may be in dispute. Ideally, a dispute over seabed jurisdiction would be resolved before the area is established.

Another question that has been raised is whether or not there are clear requirements for consultation. The concern has been raised that these areas could be established by cabinet without community input. There is a requirement for public consultations in the legislation. The nature of these consultations is also set out in Parks Canada policies. Reference has been made to the feasibility study in Lake Superior. It has been a very intensive process. It's a process that has gone on for a couple of years. It involves a local advisory committee, which represents community interests along the north shore of Lake Superior. It was a very intensive and very inclusive feasibility study process, and a process that concluded with support for establishment of a marine conservation area on the north shore of Lake Superior and a clear desire to proceed to the next step.

Once an area is established, the consultation and the discussions with local communities does not end there. The bill provides for the establishment of area advisory committees that would be established not simply to plan the establishment of an area but also to assist and advise the minister in their management on an ongoing basis.

Perhaps I might end there with a few concluding remarks. Canada has a very proud marine heritage, and Bill C-10 is the framework legislation that would be required to enable us to establish, manage, and protect NMCAs and to protect our marine heritage at the same time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Katz.

Do any of your colleagues want to make comments, or do we just go ahead with questions?

Mr. Nik Lopoukhine: We can go right into questions.

The Chair: All right. Mr. Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you very much.

It was a very interesting presentation, but I still think somewhat ambiguous in terms of... I see this whole act as creating more overlap of bureaucracy and jurisdiction. Why can't the Oceans Act and the Fisheries Act and other various acts that already have a lot of these ideas in them... For instance, what is the difference between an MPA in the Oceans Act and an MCA under Heritage Canada? There just seems to be an awful lot of duplication. Could you elaborate a bit there for me?

• 1010

Ms. Susan Katz: Marine protected areas that are established under the Oceans Act are single-purpose designations. They are designed to deal with a particular issue or a particular problem. Once that issue or problem is resolved, the designation could be taken away.

National marine conservation areas serve a broader purpose. They strive to represent a marine region in all of its features. They set these areas aside in perpetuity, as examples of Canada's marine heritage, in order to protect and conserve our marine heritage on an ongoing basis. They provide opportunities for Canadians to learn about that heritage and enjoy the experience of those areas.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you.

Under prohibitions, clause 13 basically outlaws oil and gas exploration or any mineral extraction. Given the technology of today, could oil and gas extraction not be done in environmentally sound manner? Is it not done elsewhere in the world? I believe it is.

Ms. Susan Katz: There continue to be concerns that permitting oil and gas exploration within a marine conservation area would pose risks to the features of an area, to the resources of a marine conservation area. The prohibition on oil and gas development is an international standard in establishing marine protected areas. It is a standard to which Canada has committed itself.

It is also a reflection of broad consultations that were undertaken in developing our marine policy. It was quite clear in our consultations that while sustainable use of marine resources should continue within marine conservation areas, it was also clear that non-renewable resource development posed risks and should not be permitted within national marine conservation areas. So as a matter of policy, non-renewable resource development would not be permitted. That policy is reflected in this legislation.

Mr. Andy Burton: It was rather interesting on Tuesday. One of our witnesses was a commercial fisherman with much expertise over many years. He mentioned that in one area he was aware of where there were drilling rigs, the fishermen tied one end of their seine nets to one of the legs on the drilling platforms.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is I think this bill is just too restrictive. We all understand the need for some ecological preservation, so nobody's arguing with that, but I just think it goes too far. Some restrictions in some of the prohibitions would make this bill a lot more acceptable. Definitely the prohibition of oil and gas extraction is a huge concern for the north coast.

Ms. Susan Katz: Perhaps I could make an additional comment on that.

When Parks Canada is establishing marine conservation areas, one of the most important pieces of science that precedes the establishment of an area is a mineral and energy resource assessment. This is a process we follow in establishing national parks, and is also a process we follow when establishing marine conservation areas.

When we are looking at a number of sites in a particular region and trying to determine what site would best represent the region, one of the most important studies undertaken is whether or not, in any of those sites we are looking at, there is a potential for oil and gas. We use that information as a way of establishing boundaries for proposed marine conservation areas, with the intention of ensuring that there are no conflicts between the objectives we're pursuing in establishing a marine conservation area, and the economic opportunities that could be available for coastal communities in oil and gas development.

• 1015

We work very carefully to ensure that there aren't any conflicts. It's a process we follow on federal lands. The provincial governments also have processes they can launch, to pursue the same kind of science.

Mr. Andy Burton: I appreciate that. That's comforting. I would like to see something like that included in the bill, so it was very clear and we knew that was the case.

I have another question in that direction, though. If an area were created, and for whatever reason the oil and gas potential was not deemed to be significant but there was potential there, would there be any objection to directional drilling? I'm sure you're aware of directional drilling, where a rig can be set up as far as ten kilometres outside an area to drill underneath. It's not clear in the bill, other than to say “no oil and gas extraction”.

Would there be any difficulty with that type of situation—extracting from under the seabed on a directional basis? The actual drilling rig would be outside the marine conservation area, but would drill directionally underneath.

Ms. Susan Katz: But the resources would be extracted from a marine conservation area, from federal lands that are protected under the legislation.

Mr. Andy Burton: All right, so the answer is no.

Ms. Susan Katz: Yes, that's correct because the extraction would be occurring within the lands of a national marine conservation area.

Mr. Andy Burton: That again just expands my concern about clause 13. I really think we have to look very hard at that, because you'd be drawing a resource from as deep as probably 20,000 to 30,000 feet under the seabed. I just fail to see where that would be a problem, quite frankly.

You said, Ms. Katz, there were no areas under consideration at this time, yet we have Gwaii Haanas and an area in Lake Superior in the Great Lakes that are already under consideration. The southern Strait of Georgia is also circled on your map. Is that not already under consideration?

Ms. Susan Katz: Yes. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. We do not at this moment have proposals that are ready to be presented to Parliament. If we take the example of the proposal on the north shore of Lake Superior, the feasibility study has come to a conclusion and the advisory committee has presented its recommendations. However, there is not yet a federal-provincial agreement in place, transferring administration and control of provincial lands.

An interim management plan has not yet been developed for the area. So while the proposed marine conservation area has gone through some of the important steps, it has not yet completed all of the establishment steps, therefore the proposal isn't ready yet to bring to Parliament.

Similarly, in the southern Strait of Georgia the feasibility study has not yet been formally launched.

In Gwaii Haanas we have identified proposed boundaries. There is a federal-provincial agreement of intent, but as yet a fisheries management plan has not been prepared for the proposed marine conservation area reserve of Gwaii Haanas.

So again, the proposal is not yet ready to be presented to Parliament. Work is underway and proceeding, but a number of steps are yet to be completed before the minister can table the proposal in the House.

Mr. Andy Burton: What level of public consultation in the affected areas has taken place to date, regarding Gwaii Haanas, for instance.

Ms. Susan Katz: There were consultations a number of years ago, I believe, around the establishment of the reserve on Gwaii Haanas. But one of the important pieces of work that needs to be done is the fisheries management plan. The consultations required to bring that together have not yet been launched.

Mr. Andy Burton: Okay, so there'll be further consultations. That's good.

Ms. Susan Katz: Yes, there will.

• 1020

Mr. Andy Burton: You also mentioned you're basically looking at 3% to 5% of any given region possibly being subject to an MCA designation. Should that not be part of the bill, so somebody doesn't change their mind down the road? For example, in B.C. we were looking at 12% of the area to be preserved for parks and so on—provincially—and it tended to grow like a mushroom. Should there not be a limiting factor included in the bill?

Ms. Susan Katz: The actual size could vary from region to region. I don't believe we had yet considered putting a precise figure in. Perhaps some flexibility should be retained, depending on the particular region we're looking at.

Mr. Andy Burton: You mentioned 3% to 5%, and my concern is whether it's 3% to 5% of the total 29 marine areas combined, so you could have maybe one area where a huge part was set aside and another area where virtually nothing, or a very small area, was set aside. Do you see my concern?

Ms. Susan Katz: These determinations are made on a site-by-site basis, and I used that figure as an approximation and a way of making the clarification that we are not representing an entire marine region, but a representative sample of it. The actual percentage could vary from area to area.

Mr. Andy Burton: So the 3% to 5% isn't accurate?

Ms. Susan Katz: It's an approximation.

Mr. Andy Burton: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Burton, can we give a chance to the others?

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question mainly has to do with the legal considerations. It may be more for Ms. Porter than for Ms. Katz.

Subclause 5(2) of your bill clearly says that the lands where the areas will be established will belong to the federal government. Yet subsection 92(5) of the Constitution Act, 1887, clearly stipulates that “the management sale of the public lands belonging to the province and of the timber and wood thereon” come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Your bill is anti-constitutional right from the outset, because you are asking for something that is contrary to subsection 92(5) of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the Government of Quebec has already passed legislation regarding its lands, and all the parties in Quebec agree on this legislation. It prohibits the province from assigning lands to the federal government. This Quebec statute does not allow the province to enter into an agreement with the federal government except for the part that is under federal jurisdiction. It does not allow an agreement in the part that comes under provincial jurisdiction, for example that has to do with endangered species in the province.

So if you wanted to create a park in Quebec, with this new legislation, it would be impossible to have a federal-provincial agreement because the Quebec legislation prohibits such an agreement and you would be asking the Government of Quebec for something—and this could hold true for another province—that is anti-constitutional, since section 92 says clearly that these lands come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. So I don't understand why you have come here with a bill that contains such a provision.

[English]

Ms. Daphne Porter (Legal Counsel, Parks Canada Agency): First of all, the agreement you referred to, the Saguenay and St. Lawrence situation, was clearly an area where jurisdiction over the seabed belonged to the Province of Quebec. So in that situation an arrangement was worked out where there was parallel legislation. That was the arrangement reached with the province.

• 1025

Could you tell me more clearly what the section you are referring to in the Constitution Act, section 95, says? The basis for federal jurisdiction over federal land is in section 91(1A) of the Constitution Act. I'm not sure in what context you're using section 95. I don't have it here with me.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Subsection 92(5) says that the management and sale of the public lands come exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. It's clearly set out in that section. Does this contradict section 91? That I don't know. I must admit I don't have section 91 with me.

Let's forget about that for a moment. You mentioned the agreement for the Saguenay-St.Lawrence Marine Park. In that case, the federal government recognized that special legislation was needed because there was a contradiction relating to the provincial and federal areas of jurisdiction and because the province, under the Constitution Act, truly owned the seabed. Consequently, special legislation was passed by Parliament to enter into that agreement. I would point out that at the same time, the plan that I think was called the St. Lawrence River Action Plan - phase III, was signed by all the federal departments affected and by all the provincial departments that were affected.

So I don't know whether this matter is equally sensitive for the other provinces, but for those of us from Quebec, the approach that should be taken is the one that we use for the marine park. In other words, Bill C-10 flies in the face of the previous agreements, such as the agreement for the marine park. That is why we have to vote against the bill.

If another park is to be established, we want the same pattern to be used, the pattern for the Saguenay-St.Lawrence Marine Park, because it would be dangerous to hand over our lands to the federal government, because after that, they would come in with national standards, which often would be—

We know all about national standards. Quebec did not wish to sign the Social Union Framework Agreement, for instance, because of national standards for health care and social services, and so on, and none of the political parties wanted to sign it. They are against this agreement.

So in this case, the same thing would happen again. The federal government would bring in national standards for these areas that might not be in the best interests of Quebec. So we would prefer to negotiate with the federal government, as we did for the marine park.

Now my question is somewhat political. I apologize, since you are public officials. But I did want to make you aware of our way of seeing things, which I think is quite defensible.

The Chair: Could I ask for a clarification that would respond to our colleague's concerns? Unless I'm mistaken, paragraph 5(2)(b) says that when a province has the administration and control of any of the lands to be included, the government of that province must have agreed to their being used as a marine area. If the province does not give its consent, the proposal dies there. Nothing happens.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If there is no agreement, the project dies. Except that a province may want the project without necessarily assigning the land. For example, in the case of the Saguenay project, Quebec did not grant the lands. There was a federal-provincial agreement and Quebec remained the owner of the land. So, a magnificent park could be created in Quebec, but since the Quebec statutes forbid the province to hand over the land, there would be no such parks because of Bill C-10. That's the danger. I don't know how we could make an exception. I don't have a specific proposal to make, but I did want to draw the committee's attention to this, as well as the attention of the senior officials who were so kind as to come and visit us today.

The Chair: Ms. Katz, that's a very important point. If, for example, under paragraph 5(2)(b), a province, Quebec, did not want to grant its lands and as a result no marine area is established, would the federal government still have the opportunity to pass special legislation by way of an agreement with a province such as the one entered into for the Saguenay-St.Lawrence Marine Park? Is there anything that would keep the federal government from doing that?

• 1030

Ms. Susan Katz: No, there is nothing that would keep the government from doing that. Bill C-10 provides a model for marine conservation areas that is based on federal ownership of lands. So this is the model we are looking at today. But nothing in the bill precludes another model.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: In that case, I would like Bill C-10 to include a provision specifying that there could be such agreements, so that the legislation is not restrictive. This legislation, C-10, would become "the" law. But if there was something in the legislation that said, however, with due respect for jurisdiction, there could also be specific agreements such as the one entered into earlier, that would reassure me. Do you see what I'm saying? Furthermore, passing the bill as it currently stands could mean that one day a minister will interpret it in a very restrictive way and not want to enter into an agreement.

The Chair: Excellent.

[English]

Mr. McNally, do you have any questions?

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentation.

Going back to the Lake Superior agreement you've mentioned, that is one that obviously would fall within paragraph 5(2)(b)—the one involving shared jurisdiction, so that consultation is in place.

You and the chair both mentioned Bill C-48, eastern Newfoundland, the one that fell apart because of the consultation. Would that also fall within the purview of paragraph 5(2)(b)—shared jurisdiction—or was it on federal lands?

Ms. Susan Katz: Do you mean the waters off Bonavista?

Mr. Grant McNally: Yes.

Ms. Susan Katz: I honestly don't know. I'd have to ask. The study didn't proceed far enough. It was clear there wasn't any local support, so we just cancelled the study and moved on.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. I think what we've discovered as a committee is that the nub of the issue is located in some of the questions being brought up here in jurisdiction.

You have said the government wouldn't act unilaterally in lands in federal jurisdiction or perhaps in dispute as to provincial-federal jurisdiction. I think you said in your presentation there would be a determination made ahead of time as to what the jurisdiction was before there would be an MCA established.

Ms. Susan Katz: Yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: That's okay. Now, what clause in the bill would ensure it? We will be gone one day ten or twenty or thirty years down the road. Although the intent of the minister and the government is obviously to act in a consultative way, if there's not protection in law for it, what guarantee is there for the future that there may not be a unilateral establishment of an MCA in federal lands that would have a direct impact on local economies and the economic activity within an area?

I don't see a guarantee here, although I know there's good intent on behalf of the government and the minister. In the future, if there's no guarantee in the law, then the government could act unilaterally. Would you agree?

Ms. Susan Katz: There are specific provisions in addition to paragraph 5(2)(b) that talk about the situation in which the province has administrative control of the lands and transfers them to the federal government. In addition—

Mr. Grant McNally: But the lands in dispute, the ones that are... I have no disagreement with you on that point. The unclear part is the lands that are now federal jurisdiction or in dispute as to jurisdiction. Those are the lands I refer to.

Ms. Susan Katz: The legislation does not make specific reference to that, you're quite correct.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay, that's a concern, because it's not specifically laid out in this legislation. Although there's good intent on behalf of the government, because it's not in law, you're saying, there is no guarantee that when we're all gone, a future government might not establish an MCA unilaterally, without consultation—because, does not clause 10 only refer to lands that are covered in paragraph 5(1)(a)?

• 1035

Ms. Susan Katz: No.

Mr. Grant McNally: I meant paragraph 5(2)(b), sorry, not 5(2)(a).

Ms. Susan Katz: There are a number of provisions in the legislation requiring consultation. That requirement for consultation is not specific to lands under the administration and control of the province. It is a general requirement to consult with any province—

Mr. Grant McNally: Regardless of jurisdiction.

Ms. Susan Katz: —regardless of who owns the lands, whether the lands are clearly federal or in dispute. So the obligation to consult with provincial governments is there, regardless who owns the seabed.

Mr. Grant McNally: Now, what you just stated would be open to interpretation, based on the clauses in the bill, wouldn't you say? Is it clear-cut? Nowhere does it specifically say that if the lands fall into the jurisdiction of the federal government as per paragraph 5(1)(a), clause 10 applies, necessarily. If there were some clarification within the bill as to that, then I think Mr. Burton's concerns would be somewhat allayed, and my concerns would be somewhat allayed, and those of other members, too.

Ms. Daphne Porter: I think subclause 10(1) is quite clear that the requirement to consult is with regard to the establishment and modification of marine conservation areas. There's nothing in that clause that says “only in the case where the province has administration of the land under paragraph 5(2)(b)”. It's clearly a requirement for the establishment of any marine conservation area. I think the bill is already quite clear in that regard.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. Well, I guess maybe we'll disagree a bit on that point, because I imagine you've been involved in the drafting of the bill, that you have written it with that intent, so that is the perspective you're coming to the bill with.

But again, once we're all gone, is it clear in law that is in effect the intent of the law, which will be interpreted and applied thus in the future? I don't see that as guaranteed, although I understand what you're saying.

The Chair: If I may interject, I think the way it's written now there's no guarantee, because the clause says “the minister shall provide opportunities”. So if she doesn't provide opportunities, then there wouldn't be.

I think if it said “the minister shall consult”, it would be completely unambiguous and would force the minister to consult with relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies and affected coastal communities. There would be no way for the minister to subtract herself. Maybe you could just clarify that.

I think now I agree with Mr. McNally, that the way it's written there may be a loophole. Perhaps if it were tightened there wouldn't be.

Ms. Susan Katz: We will certainly want to look at that.

Mr. Grant McNally: I think if we're being blind to our party labels and who we are—which is what I think we should be doing—we have to consider this as a possible unintended consequence we may be creating if we don't answer these questions first on this important issue. I think from what I've heard—and I'm just new here—that is the nub of the issue for those raising concerns.

If we get this answered and have a provision within the bill that lands within federal or disputed jurisdiction are involved in this—that this process would be guaranteed to occur—then, I think, there would be very little if any opposition, because those procedures would be in place to ensure, as you said, Mr. Chair, that the process was guaranteed to happen. If local people didn't like it, they could be assured they would be involved, thereby allaying all the worries of this potential process.

I don't know, can we do that?

The Chair: We have suggested to Ms. Katz and the officials that this is one area they should look at, to leave no sort of ambiguity in regard to the consultation process—to make it compulsory.

Ms. Bulte, do you have any questions?

• 1040

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: No, I'm fine. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: To go back to Andy's first question—to delineate between the MPA and the MCA—could you just give me an example? For example, if there were a salmon stock in jeopardy in a particular area and maybe there were a specific spawning ground that may have to be protected, DFO would come in with an MPA or something like that. Once the stock had returned, the MPA would then maybe be lifted. That would be different from an MCA, in that an MCA is the particular portion of seabed that will be kept pristine or just not changed at all once it's established. Just paint a picture again of the difference between the MPA and the MCA.

Ms. Susan Katz: In the case of fisheries marine protected areas, they're dealing with particular issues or particular problems. It may be protecting a particular fishing area under some stress or spawning areas that need protection to allow fish stocks to recover. Or it could be protecting a particularly productive area. The designation could be short-term or it could be longer-term, but it clearly zeros in on protecting a particular feature or dealing with a particular issue in fisheries management.

The areas are quite small, generally. It's like our marine program—a fairly new program—but the areas are not only quite small but are focused on a single purpose. Our main objective is representing a marine region, finding an area within a larger marine region that provides a good representation of the area's marine history, ecology, biophysical characteristics, cultural resources, and the link to Canada's history. So we have a broader set of objectives and we go in there with the clear purpose of representing an area.

In the national parks example, we seek to represent terrestrial areas. In the marine region, we seek to represent marine regions with a view to ensuring that these areas are protected for all time, that Canadians have an opportunity to learn about them and to visit and enjoy them. So we have a broader mandate. But we can work together. Within a marine conservation area, we could in fact be working with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to protect a spawning ground. So we can support each other's goals, but we also complement what each program is doing. We work together under the general leadership provided by the Oceans Act.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: That's fine.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chairman, if I could just follow up on the question that Mr. Cuzner just asked...

Would it be possible, or is it conceivable, that once having designated an MCA that you have an MPA in an MCA?

An hon. member: ASAP.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: No, but if there were a potential single issue, be it the spawning ground, once the marine conservation area has been designated and if a single issue arises, could it conceivably be designated for that time period or a limited period? So it could be an MPA within an MCA?

Ms. Susan Katz: Yes. We have an interdepartmental steering committee that enables us to keep our programs working together. When we're designing a marine conservation area, we obviously work very closely with the fisheries department in designing the boundaries. If we're looking at a particular area because it has really quite exceptional representative qualities, then the Department of Fisheries and Oceans may also have been looking at a similar area because they want to protect a spawning ground. So the MCA could in fact serve the objectives of both programs.

• 1045

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you.

The Chair: We might have time for just one more question.

Mr. Burton, do you have any more questions? Just one more question. It is now 11:45. We have to break at 11:50 to set up the video conference. So five minutes, if you can share it with Mr. McNally.

Mr. Andy Burton: Yes, I'll be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

We're getting down to the crux of the matter, and it is definitely jurisdiction and who has jurisdiction over what area. I think what Mr. McNally has said... I certainly agree that if there are jurisdictional disputes, we need a section in this bill that clearly states it cannot go forward without these difficulties being resolved.

Could you agree with that, Ms. Katz, that we could do something along those lines to clearly state that if there's a jurisdictional dispute, the issue won't proceed until the dispute is resolved or there is some way of resolving it?

I'd also like to point out that I very much agree with my colleague Mr. Plamondon, and his concerns. I just want that on the record, but the question is for Ms. Katz.

Ms. Susan Katz: Well, our role here, sir, is of course to take the various concerns back to the government. It would not be for me, obviously, to make a commitment as to what amendments the government may or may not be able to table.

Mr. Andy Burton: But you will take that concern back, though? I'm looking for that comfort.

Ms. Susan Katz: Yes, of course, we would be taking that concern back to the minister.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: I can briefly say that perhaps the way to do it would be in clause 10. I guess I'm saying this to the committee more than to the officials, although the officials have to take this back also to the government—maybe to include in all clauses something along the lines of “section 10 applies to lands in subsection 5(1) and paragraph 5(2)(a)”. If that were to happen, I think this would address the concerns.

The Chair: Thank you.

If you've noted all these concerns, Mrs. Katz, that's really what the purpose of it is. I thank all the witnesses for appearing and for being very forthright.

We'll suspend the meeting for now to set up the video conference. We'll resume the meeting at 11 o'clock to greet the people from Vancouver.

• 1048

• 1111

The Chair: We'll call the committee meeting to order.

We're pleased to welcome, from Vancouver, British Columbia, Ms. Anne Murray, executive director of the Federation of B.C. Naturalists. Maybe you could identify yourself, Ms. Murray.

From the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce we have Mr. Andrew Winn-Williams, who is the director of policy and communications; from the B.C. Seafood Alliance, Ms. Michelle James, president; from the Island Trust, Gordon McIntosh, executive director; and from Bluewater Adventures Ltd., Mr. Randy Burke.

The floor is yours. I don't know if you're starting in that particular order or not. It's up to you to choose. I'll leave the floor to you. If you can, make your presentations brief enough so we have time for questions afterward. As you know, we have from now until one o'clock. I'll leave the floor to whoever wants to start off.

Ms. Anne Murray (Executive Director, Federation of British Columbia Naturalists): Thank you for this opportunity to present to the committee on behalf of the naturalists of British Columbia.

We were founded in 1969 and have about 50 member and affiliate clubs with about 5,300 members. Our motto is “To know nature and to keep it worth knowing”. We've had a long interest in marine conservation. Since 1988 we've passed 19 resolutions at our annual general meetings on this topic, including resolutions on restriction of oil tanker traffic, the regulation of marina developments, and the support of the Oceans Act.

I've enclosed a summary of these resolutions with the document I gave you. Twenty of our member clubs are in coastal communities, and many of them have marine ecology groups. They support or conduct research into marine ecosystems. Some of these activities include the B.C. coastal waterbird survey, the Georgia Basin mapping project, and the bald eagle nest tree program on the east coast of Vancouver Island.

• 1115

We also lead educational tours of marine and coastal ecosystems and volunteer in parks and protected areas. Our members enjoy nature trips to all sorts of marine destinations, including the Gulf Islands, Bamfield, Haida Gwaii, Masset Sound, and so on.

The federation is also the lead provincial partner with the Wild Bird Trust for the important bird areas program, which was started by BirdLife International a few years ago to identify, protect, and monitor a network of vital habitats for the conservation of bird populations and biodiversity around the world. There are 84 designated IBA sites in B.C., of which 70 have a marine component. I would direct your attention to the maps I enclosed with the documents, figures 1, 2, and 3. They give an idea of how many sites are clustered in marine ecosystems.

The Chair: Ms. Murray, if I can interrupt you, I should mention that according to our rules, any document we receive has to be translated into both official languages before it is distributed, so we couldn't distribute your material today. It will be translated by the House of Commons and sent to all the members as soon as possible. Meanwhile, act as if they don't have it, because they don't. Okay?

Ms. Anne Murray: Okay.

I've enclosed some maps with the document, which you'll see when it gets translated and which will show you where some of these sites are. It will show clearly that there are very many marine sites that are highly important to birds, particularly as they include many birds' nesting sites.

On Saturday we recognized the designation of the Fraser River estuary as an IBA site. It meets the criteria of globally significant numbers and diversity of birds, having the highest number of bird species in the whole of Canada. This is just another example of how important British Columbia is for biodiversity.

Here in B.C. we've got a vast area of marine influence. We have 29,500 kilometres of coastline, 450,000 square kilometres of the province's internal waters and offshore marine waters, and 6,500 coastal islands. We've got wildlife species specific to the marine ecosystem, including 29 mammals, 161 birds, 400 fish, over 6,550 invertebrates, and at least 800 species of algae. Eighty percent of the world's population of Cassin's auklet and 60% to 90% of Barrow's goldeneye breed in British Columbia.

We have endangered marine species, namely the sea otter and the right whale. We have threatened species, namely the humpback whale, the killer whale, the marbled murrelet, and the northern abalone.

Whale watching and pelagic birdwatching are extremely important ecotourism activities, and the clear, cold waters of B.C. are recognized as a premier scuba diving destination.

These are some of the reasons British Columbia is very important from the wildlife point of view, and we are in favour of marine conservation area legislation to support the protection of these values. We particularly think that the conservation of marine diversity is essential. We're aware that fish stocks are declining. Many of our marine ecosystems have a lot of demands on them, and some of them are in a diminished state.

The role of the marine conservation areas is to protect the spectrum of marine ecosystems from coast to coast, and we strongly support this. Stewardship of B.C.'s waters is an important responsibility both nationally and internationally. We welcome Canada's help in this and are glad that it is not just left to the province.

As Bill C-10 currently stands, the FBCN supports the fact that the legislation shows Canada's support for the creation of a representative system of marine conservation areas. We welcome the fact that it commits the government to consult a wide variety of stakeholders. We welcome its emphasis on ecosystem planning and the precautionary principle, and we welcome its recognition of the importance of providing opportunities for coastal communities to continue to utilize the ocean's resources.

It may be asked why we need marine conservation areas when we have the Oceans Act providing for the creation of marine protected areas. There are many advantages to one government body being responsible for both land and sea conservation in an area.

I'd like to take the example of Gwaii Haanas. The land's already a national park reserve. Bill C-10, if passed, would allow for the creation of a complementary marine conservation area in the area currently reserved for this purpose, which is 3,500 square kilometres. This, I might note, is a very small area compared to the 450,000 square kilometres of inland waters and marine waters I mentioned earlier.

• 1120

The linkage would allow the monitoring of the connection between terrestrial and marine ecosystems in a controlled environment. Some of the connections have already been the subject of studies in recent years. For instance, herring are eaten by salmon, and salmon are eaten by bears. The bears haul the salmon carcasses into the forest, and once in the forest, the remains of the salmon rot and nourish the trees. The nutrients make such a difference to the trees that if you study the tree rings, you can see which year was a good salmon year. The scientists have been working on that just recently.

With such a blending of natural systems, it just makes sense that we simplify and blend our human administration roles. Having them all under one jurisdiction is, we feel, a good thing in certain areas. This would also be good, for instance, in the southern Gulf Islands, where we've got a plethora of jurisdictions.

Some communities are concerned whether this act will shut down economic activity in the north. A lot of our clubs are in the north, so through our membership we hear about these concerns and about the desire for economic growth from the oil and gas industry that is operating up there. It's clearly not the case that this act will shut down economic activity. The area covered by the proposed marine conservation area is very small relative to the marine ecosystem as a whole.

The debate over oil and gas development is a very important one. It will be taking place, but it's not, in our view, relevant in this hearing. The oil and gas industry, we note, has publicly supported, for instance, the establishment of Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area. There aren't any leases in question.

The Federation of B.C. Naturalists is also supportive of the concept of zoning within marine conservation areas. We'd like to stress the need for no-take zones within that zoning system. Experience elsewhere in the world has demonstrated that these create essential nursery and juvenile sanctuaries and allow for larger and older fish to flourish. This replenishes the marine environment, with significant benefits to commercial fishing and sport fishing industries and communities. We like the fact that the bill allows for broad consultation in the development of zoning maps and management plans. We would encourage the involvement of naturalists and biologists in the process.

In the document, when you do get it, we've made a few specific recommendations for the act. I've just got one minute, so I won't go into all of these, but specifically with respect to clause 4, where it states the purpose of the act, we want to stress conserving marine diversity. We'd also like to put in “no-take zone” in subclause 4(4). It's not clearly specified as such. There is the intention to fully protect special features and fragile ecosystems, but we'd like to see the no-take zone in there as a possible zone.

We'd also like to see more activities explicitly prohibited in marine conservation areas, which would mean some changes to clauses 12 through 15. I've given you some details on that.

In conclusion, we support the passage of Bill C-10. We particularly like the fact that you are supporting the creation of a system of marine conservation areas as part of the preservation of global biodiversity.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Murray.

I can assure you that your recommendations regarding changes will be sent to the appropriate people, who will look at whether they can be brought forward and, if so, at framing amendments.

I would like to turn to the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Andrew Winn-Williams. Mr. Williams.

Mr. Andrew Winn-Williams (Director, Policy and Communications, British Columbia Chamber of Commerce): I am here today on behalf of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, as you mentioned. I speak on behalf of 120 chambers of commerce and over 27,000 businesses from around the province. This includes a number of coastal communities that could suffer negative impacts as a result of this proposed legislation.

As our mandate is to advocate for the economic well-being of the people of British Columbia, we have some concerns about this. I would like to thank the committee for making the effort they have made today to allow us to appear in this fashion and express these concerns.

• 1125

A Vancouver mayor—I can't remember his name—in the 1930s once said the problem isn't that it's 3,000 miles to Ottawa, but that it seems to be 30,000 miles back. I'm glad to see you've taken steps to try to address that concern.

I will begin with a brief discussion of the economic challenges facing British Columbia, particularly on the north coast. These are communities that for years have relied on forestry, fishing, and mineral extraction to survive. Their economies are suffering, as indeed is B.C.'s as a whole, because of a forest industry driven downward by the softwood lumber dispute, limited fisheries, and limited land access for mineral exploration. Consequently, one of the keys for economic survival of these communities is continued access to marine resources, including cruise ships, oil and gas exploration, and aquaculture. This legislation has the potential to affect these initiatives adversely and to damage further the economies of our coastal communities.

Our first concern is with the duplication inherent in this legislation. We understand the need to maintain our environment. We believe, however, that existing federal, provincial, and municipal legislation adequately covers that need, particularly when coordinated through the Oceans Act. Legislation to protect oceans includes the Canada Wildlife Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Environment Canada establishes marine wildlife areas under these acts and specifically protects Canada's marine environment by working with the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Canada Shipping Act, and the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Furthermore, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act necessitates comprehensive review of all human activity, to protect the environment. When these are combined with existing provincial legislation and processes on environment protection and land use, it is clear that further legislation and regulation is unnecessary and redundant. Having made that point, however, it is also clear that this government is devoted to legislating further restriction and is unlikely to withdraw this bill.

In that light, I'd like to discuss some issues that government should consider in a redraft of this bill. The first of these is a specific recommended change in wording. The preamble of the bill states:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to adopting the precautionary principle in the conservation and management of the marine environment so that, where there are threats of environmental damage, lack of scientific certainty is not used as a reason for postponing preventive measures;

This wording is not consistent with the definition used in a number of other Canadians acts, in particular the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, which states:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the precautionary principle that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation...

In a letter to this standing committee dated September 26 of this year, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce outlined a number of concerns about this new wording that go far beyond the mere lack of consistency. These include the lack of a defined threshold for invoking this principle, the degree of scientific certainty, and the recognition of cost-effectiveness as an important consideration.

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce fully concurs with these concerns as raised and defined by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and recommends that the wording in CEPA be used when defining the precautionary principle in this act also.

Our second concern is the enabling nature of this legislation. It grants the power to create marine conservation areas, or MCAs, to the federal cabinet through Governor in Council decisions. We've already pointed out that the creation of an MCA could have a deleterious impact on local economies. We believe it is inappropriate for cabinet to make such far-reaching decisions without consultation that would be necessitated by an act of Parliament. As it stands, the wording in the legislation could deny local communities, and even local MPs, the right to contribute or consult in the process of creating MCAs. This seems unbalanced when compared to the process of decreasing, amending, or eliminating MCAs, which would require an act of Parliament. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce recommends that an act of Parliament be required to create marine conservation areas.

Our concerns around the consultation and the creation of MCAs are exacerbated because there is an apparent jurisdictional overlap with the proposed act. In particular, it would prohibit the use or occupation of any public lands within an MCA. A significant portion of the land in British Columbia is public land held either by federal or provincial crowns. Various aspects of legislation permit various types of use and occupation of land and water along B.C.'s coastline. This bill could, without consultation, cancel all these permitted uses and occupations. These could include fishing licences, mineral and forest tenures, aquaculture, and oil and gas exploration. Furthermore, there is no discussion of compensation for those affected by the elimination of such uses or occupations.

• 1130

The minister responsible, the Honourable Sheila Copps, has commented on these jurisdictional issues and has expressed a desire to proceed in a cooperative and consultative manner. This is admirable, but not particularly comforting, given that governments and ministers can change and the unilateral nature of the bill as it stands would give future governments the ability to create further MCAs without consultation and could abrogate provincial rights and responsibilities.

The British Columbia Chamber of Commerce recommends that Bill C-10 be amended such that the creation of an MCA requires a formal consultation process and parallel provincial legislation where responsibilities under its jurisdiction are impacted. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce also recommends that the legislation recognize third-party interests and compensate them where their rights are negatively impacted.

The final comment I'd like to address today is around the issue of offshore oil and gas reserves. Indications are that such reserves represent a notable economic opportunity. The province of B.C., and in particular our impoverished coastal communities, could benefit significantly from this resource. This bill, however, includes wording in a number of areas and one specific clause that bans oil exploration. Consequently, this bill would give the federal government the ability to put this opportunity beyond our reach forever through unilateral action.

Minister Copps has stated that they are not considering the creation of MCAs in areas of high potential for oil and gas discoveries. That is good, but if such is the case, why is the ban on exploration so explicit? If there are no reserves, there is no reason to worry, and exploration need not be forbidden either expressly or by implication. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce recommends that the act be reworded to allow exploration, provided it is conducted in an environmentally safe fashion.

Thanks again for the opportunity. I hope you will give these concerns due consideration—and I hope I don't look too silly on video. Thank you.

The Chair: I'll let my colleagues say, but I think you look pretty good.

In any case, Mr. Winn-Williams, you can be assured that your concerns are registered by all the committee members here, and they'll be passed on. As soon as we translate your brief, they'll be sent to all the members. Thank you.

We'll now turn to Ms. Michelle James, the president of the B.C. Seafood Alliance. Ms. James.

Ms. Michelle James (President, B.C. Seafood Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The B.C. Seafood Alliance is a self-funded, non-profit society representing the seafood business in British Columbia. Our membership consists of all the major organizations representing the seafood business. Our members are the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association; the Canadian Sablefish Association; the Deep Sea Trawlers Association; the Fisheries Council of Canada; the Pacific Halibut Management Association; the Pacific Prawn Fishermen's Association; the Pacific Salmon Harvesters Society, representing a number of groups in the salmon fishery; the Pacific Sea Cucumber Harvesters Association; the Pacific Urchin Harvesters Association; the Spawn-On-Kelp Operators Association; the Underwater Harvesters Association; the B.C. Salmon Marketing Council; the Canadian Groundfish Research and Conservation Society; and the Pacific Coast Fishermen's Mutual Marine Insurance. The reason I mention all these is that these groups represent 90% of the seafood industry in British Columbia, and they've gotten together to deal with issues such as this.

This is a very important issue to the seafood industry in British Columbia, as it has the potential to affect that industry. Our members are located all over the coast of British Columbia. There are 15,000 people involved in the seafood harvesting industry in B.C., about 9,000 of those in the seafood harvesting business and 2,000 in the farming business. The wholesale value of the seafood industry in British Columbia is approximately $1 billion annually.

The B.C. Seafood Alliance agrees in principle with the formation of both national marine conservation areas and marine protected areas. They can be part of an overall strategy to conserve marine ecosystems and promote sustainable seafood harvesting and farming opportunities. The B.C. Seafood Alliance is fully prepared to work with both the federal and provincial governments to ensure the objectives of Bill C-10 are met, while still providing for a strong, environmentally sustainable commercial seafood harvesting and farming industry. You will not find an organization whose membership has collectively spent more time on and under Pacific Coast waters of British Columbia than the members of the B.C. Seafood Alliance.

I have four basic points to make. First of all, the B.C. Seafood Alliance believes the stewardship and sustainable management of the marine environment in Canada should be the responsibility of one agency.

• 1135

There's a great deal of confusion about the various responsibilities of various agencies and their planning processes for the marine environment. There's an enormous amount of overlap and duplication of effort in this area, with a corresponding waste of taxpayers' dollars.

Under the Oceans Act, DFO has announced a number of pilot marine protected areas and public consultation on each one of these areas. DFO also has public information out about integrated coastal zone management. Theoretically, the Oceans Act sets the framework for an all-inclusive ecosystem approach to the management of Canada's oceans and ocean resources. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is starting a process of consulting on an integrated oceans strategy.

In advance of the passage of this bill, Parks Canada has proposals and plans for marine conservation areas. They have identified four locations on the central coast, a large area surrounding South Moresby Island, a large area off the Pacific Rim National Park, and a large area in the southern Gulf Islands as potential marine conservation areas.

The proposed legislation requires management advisory committees on each marine conservation area to advise the minister on the development and implementation of management plans for the area, while the legislation allows fishing to be managed by DFO. This is a recipe for overlap, duplication, and confusion in delaying important and often time-sensitive management decisions that have to be made in the fishing industry.

Environment Canada is also planning to reintroduce the Species at Risk Act, which will potentially manage and set aside residences of threatened or endangered species. This legislation, which is largely thought out for and written around terrestrial species, applies to marine areas. Recovery plans could very well include management measures and zoning similar to MPAs and MCAs. This is being done despite the fact the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the authority and expertise to manage marine species at risk. For example, the DFO instituted a system of rockfish protection areas, refugia, in 1999 in order to protect inshore rockfish species.

The provincial land use coordination office is running a land use management planning process that has a marine component tacked on to it. That will affect marine resource planning. In addition, the provincial government has a network of marine parks, marine heritage sites, and marine ecological reserves.

Industry and public stakeholders are confused and do not have the time or money to participate in all these processes. The federal government needs to put one federal agency in charge of the stewardship and sustainable management of the marine environment of Canada. We believe that agency should be the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as contemplated under the Oceans Act. Using words like “cooperation” and “coordination” is not good enough, because despite these good words, our experience is that each agency continues to set its own agenda, processes, priorities, and activities.

Bringing forward this initiative under the responsibility of Canadian heritage, to be administered by officials of the Department of Canadian Heritage undermines the ocean leadership role assigned to the Minister of Fisheries. If an MCA is warranted in a particular area, it should be approved as part of an integrated oceans management plan under the Oceans Act, and then administered by Parks Canada for the purposes of establishing representative areas and providing educational opportunities.

Work toward the development of an integrated ocean management plan is now underway under the auspices of the Oceans Act led by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to form part of a comprehensive ecosystem approach of what we should be doing in the oceans. Just because the history of this country is to have a multitude of statutes and regulations covering land, there's no reason to get it wrong in the oceans, where there's the possibility of doing it right by facilitating a comprehensive ecosystem approach under one act, the Oceans Act.

Our recommendation is to put the substantive components of this legislation into the Oceans Act and have the Minister of Canadian Heritage administer and manage MCAs within an integrated oceans management plan.

Our second point is that in order to effectively plan for the future and invest in the seafood business, participants in the seafood business in British Columbia, from the harvester and farmer to the processors and marketers, need assurance that if valuable licenced or tenured resource access is expropriated, compensation will be provided.

When Parks Canada creates a terrestrial park there's no question that any private owners or crown tenure holders on the land are compensated by either a fee-simple purchase of land or buying out the value associated with tenures such as trapping or timber tenures. Just because marine resources are considered common property—as are trees on crown land—it does not mean those who have licences to harvest or tenures to utilize marine resources do not experience an economic loss and are not entitled to compensation for that loss.

• 1140

The seafood industry should be compensated for any losses resulting from exclusion from licenced harvesting or tenured seafood production resulting from any no-take zones. While we recognize an economic loss may not necessarily occur as a result of setting up no-take zones, we believe a legislative requirement to investigate the need for compensation will at least put some economic rigour into the process of examining the economic tradeoffs being contemplated if large no-take zones are proposed.

I'm going to give you an example here from the red sea urchin fishery. One-third of the total allowable catch for that fishery is taken around the area of South Moresby. If that area were to be closed to that kind of fishing, which is done in a sustainable manner, the question is, what happens to those people?

Another example is the goeyduc fishery—large burrowing clams. They're harvested at a 1% harvest rate in the available areas. It's a very conservative harvest rate. The Queen Charlotte Islands is on a three-year rotation, for example, of fishing through that area. In other words, once every three years there's a harvest in the Queen Charlotte Islands. What happens if those areas become no-take zones? Every third year they don't go home, they don't fish. What happens? Those are the kinds of questions industry people are asking.

The requirement for compensation for loss is not formally addressed anywhere in the legislation for policies for MPAs or MCAs. This would be unthinkable in a terrestrial environment. Why has it not been considered in the marine environment, where licenced authority to harvest or utilize crown resources is no different from timber or trapping harvest rights on crown land?

Our recommendation is when the Ocean Act is amended to include the elements of Bill C-10—or when you amend Bill C-10 itself—include a commitment that if a valuable licenced or tenured resource access is expropriated or negatively affected either by MCAs or MPAs, compensation will be provided.

Our third point is that allowing activities in MCAs should continue to potentially include a variety of activities, including harvesting and farming of marine resources. We'd like to see governments ensure the public understands that MCAs and MPAs are not necessarily going to be no-take or no-production zones. A wide variety of objectives, and thus a wide variety of zoning designations, is preferable.

Where no-take zones are put in place to preserve the marine environment, we believe they must be total no-take zones, for all users of the resource. At present, for example, in the Broken Islands group off Pacific Rim National Park, the area is totally closed to all commercial fishing; however, other users, recreational and first nations, may harvest in the area. This is, therefore, not a no-take zone.

MCAs should not be used to deal with allocation issues between various users of marine resources. This is the responsibility of fisheries and oceans Canada. Some organizations have suggested that prohibitions in MCAs be expanded to include finfish aquaculture, dragging, bottom trawling, and gillnetting. We disagree with this suggested amendment.

These are specific activities that should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, for example, the bottom trawlers do not want to trawl over the recently discovered deep sea sponge colonies off the west coast. To prohibit such activities on a blanket basis would be to indirectly accuse all of the participants of these activities of being environmentally inappropriate in all circumstances—which is not the case—and will simply serve to alienate people and businesses who are legitimate and environmentally conscious users of marine resources. We recommend the prohibited activities under the legislation not be expanded.

Our fourth point is that the seafood industry and the provincial government should be stronger partners in developing and managing both MCAs and MPAs. The proposed legislation calls for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to consult with government agencies, affected coastal communities, aboriginal organizations, and other parties the minister considers appropriate in the development of marine conservation area policy.

We submit that those who make their living harvesting and farming marine resources should be explicitly recognized in the legislation for the purposes of consultation and be included in any management advisory committees, from the perspective of both an intimate knowledge of marine resources and a legitimate interest in ensuring sustainable economic opportunities.

In addition, the proposed act has significant implications for provincial jurisdiction and regulatory activities such as aquaculture, tenuring, waste-discharge licencing, and harvesting permits for marine plants and wild oysters. However, there's no requirement for the approval of the provincial government regarding prohibitions of activities such as aquaculture within an MCA.

Provincial government has jurisdiction over a number of activities in the marine environment, and this legislation should not be used to override that jurisdiction.

• 1145

Our recommendation, as the organizations representing people who make their livelihoods from harvesting and farming, is that marine resources be explicitly recognized in subsection 9(1), and that the approval of the provincial government regarding any prohibition of provincially regulated activities be a requirement of the legislation.

British Columbia has the opportunity to be a world leader in sustainable marine resource management and seafood production at the same time. For the past ten years the seafood industry in B.C. has made tremendous strides to improve the way fisheries are managed and carried out. We are concerned, however, about the apparent lack of balance in considering the needs of the seafood business and the policies, legislation programs, and processes around the plethora of initiatives to plan and manage the marine environment.

Fundamentally, our industry needs an environmentally sustainable and stable access to marine resources, an assurance that if a valuable licence or ten-year resource access is expropriated compensation will be provided, and a simple and cost-effective method of having a real say in the management of marine resources.

We urge the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to review the proposed legislation policies for marine conservation in a more holistic manner, addressing the role of MCAs in the context of overall management of marine resources, the Oceans Act, marine protected areas, and the species at risk legislation proposal.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you on this issue.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. James.

I should mention to you that we received your brief in both languages, so the members already have a copy of the brief.

I'd like to turn the mike now to Island Trust, and Mr. Gordon McIntosh, executive director.

[Translation]

Mr. Gordon McIntosh (Executive Director, Island Trust): Good morning, my name is Gordon McIntosh.

[English]

I'm the chief administrative officer of the Island Trust. I want to speak to Bill C-10.

You have before you a brief presented by my good friend Chief Vern Jacks on Tuesday morning. It is available to you in both languages, so I hope everyone has it before them. I'm not going to read it to you.

When Chief Vern Jacks spoke to you from the heart about this special area on the coast called the Salish Sea, the Georgia Basin, he described the story of how important this area is to the Salish Sea coast culture.

Our colleague Jack Fleming, who is the superintendent of Saanich schools, is not giving a presentation to you, but he would come from the opportunity to leave a legacy for our youth. They have been involved in a program of producing CDs, guides to promote an awareness of marine stewardship in our school system.

You have at your disposal tremendous resources when it comes to interjurisdictional quagmires of policy advice. You have tremendous resources, I'm sure, for the scientific evidence that speaks to the need for marine stewardship.

I know Mr. Lincoln and his colleagues have come from all over the country, so I want to spend a little time talking from the heart about this specific area on the west coast. I want to speak to four things.

First I want to give you a little context of where the trust area is. Two, why do we need a catalyst? Why do we need Bill C-10? Three, why do we need Parks Canada? Why do we need a catalyst to bring the pieces together? Four, and most importantly, I want to tell you why we need it now.

Let me begin.

We have a little map here of the Island Trust area. The Island Trust area on the west coast is composed of 470 islands, depending on the tide, Mr. Chairman, and it covers 5,000 square kilometres. Whether the tide is high or low will determine the number of islands we have. It's a bit of a joke. So you can tell the marine environment, the water, is very important to us, because we are surrounded by it.

We have 35,000 residents, but interestingly, 45% are non-resident. We are the playground for over three million people in the immediate area, not counting tourists coming from around the world.

• 1150

The Island Trust is a local government. We have locally elected officials. So they're on the ground as local elected officials, like many of your colleagues.

We have a very special provincial mandate. In 1974 the Islands Trust Act was created because it recognized the unique fragility of this area, the ecosystem. The Islands Trust Act specifically empowers this agency to preserve and protect the unique environment and amenities.

And let me come back to amenities, because we need a balanced approach. We do that on behalf of the citizens of our area, but we also do it on behalf of all the citizens of B.C., and I might extend that as well to all the citizens of Canada.

We do it through a land use authority, so we actually have a very limited toolbox. We have a very uncertain jurisdiction relative to water, of course, but as well we have a limited toolbox when it comes to land use planning and development management.

So in this area, notwithstanding the 470 islands, the 5,000 square kilometres, we have a multitude of jurisdictions. We have many federal government departments: the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada, Environment Canada, Industry Canada.

I would like to highlight that Industry Canada, for example, has acknowledged the special features of this area. During the construction and the design of communication towers consideration was given to the unique features not only of the species, not only of the environment, but also of the visual landscape that's so important when people travel across the water in this area.

We have of course many provincial departments and we have 15 first nations. You heard from Chief Vern Jacks, but we have many other first nations in the trust area represented here.

We have local government. We have seven regional districts. We have numerous municipalities on our jurisdiction, from the city of Vancouver to the small community of Bowen Island, which is part of the trust, with around 4,000 people.

So that is the context I want to give you. Why do we need a catalyst, why do we need Bill C-10?

Anne already spoke very well, with her experience, to the need to integrate land, water, and air. The terrestrial-to-marine linkage is so critical. We give good consideration to terrestrial linkage, but we need to spend more time with the connection to our marine environment. As well, Anne and certainly others will guide you on the fact that this is a unique area that has the highest number of species at risk in Canada.

So there's the special environment. I must acknowledge the concerns that Andrew brought up as well as Michelle. Given the Island Trust's mandate to preserve and protect the environment, quite often the second part of our mandate is forgotten, which is to protect the unique amenities. That's a way of life, an economy, so we need help.

We need a process that helps bring a community dialogue with other interests. For example, Michelle's group and the industries are all dependent on this marine environment. And it's very difficult for a local government to harness that legitimacy and to be able to bring together environmental groups, economic groups, commercial groups, sport-fishing groups, etc.

The economic opportunities are there. We need to help communities develop some sustainability beyond traditional resources... and certainly the notion of ecotourism and the investment that will occur when we are able to enhance awareness about the marine features of this area.

So the Georgia Basin, the Salish Sea is a very special area. The national round table has been working on this area. The national park has been working on this area. A colleague, the former Premier Mike Harcourt, has highlighted that this is one of the unique basins in the world, and we certainly need some leadership to be able to make it world-class.

• 1155

So this bill I think speaks to making sure people do their homework, that they are not coming from emotion but coming from dialogue and doing the homework of balancing the different interests. It's an inclusive process that starts from the grassroots.

My read is that you need to have a willing community, a willing local government, and a willing provincial government before Parliament would give approval and consideration. That's a big stretch for a lot of people, that there would in fact be some procedural certainty that would give all those interests due process. I understand some of the concerns about that. But I'm going to come to an end of how we might recommend the committee to maybe prove the ability to be able implement this Bill C-10.

We need a holistic framework. We think Parks Canada has the vehicle to do that. We think they have the track record to do that. I'm going to tell you why.

As many of you may or may not be aware, the Gulf Islands will be home of the next national park. I'll call it Gulf Island national park for now.

The reason we think Parks Canada is an ideal agency is that we've had a fragmented effort. We have many different ministries. We have very many provincial organizations and local organizations. We need a focal point, and we need a new focal point, I think. We need something new, fresh, and for us in the trust area, Parks Canada has shown a unique approach. I'll tell you why.

First of all, I think they've done their homework when it comes to the feasibility. So we have a lot of faith that the feasibility process that is undertaken for a national park will be the same that will be employed for an NMCA. We were quite hesitant, I might say, at the beginning that this, in our eyes, paramilitary organization of park wardens and superintendents would come in with a very hierarchical authority kind of approach. That was a great fear. In fact, we found them, when we engaged them in dialogue, to be a very significant corporate citizen that's a breath of fresh air when it comes to dealing with all levels of government. So we think that Parks Canada has demonstrated respect for local jurisdictions, to the point where the advisory body for this new national park entrenches and involves provincial and local interests, as well as local government.

We think also that a national park without a marine component, given 5,000 square kilometres of water around this area, is a mistake. We think there needs to be a catalyst. There needs to be the integration of the various agencies. There needs to be someone who has the resources to leverage all these people, the mandate to bring these people together, and at the same time to be responsive.

My last point is to really talk about a call for action. We're ready. We've been ready for a while. We in fact gave up on senior levels of government and said that old Nike slogan: let's just go out and do it. I'm going to tell you a little story about that.

Some time ago, we recognized that there's a little boundary between the San Juan Islands, which number about 270, and our 470 islands. One day some time ago, somebody drew a line across there. But we share as island communities a common bond that we are unique. We developed a transborder agreement with the San Juan Islands to share resources, to engage the different interests, and create a dialogue about what is special about being on an island, what is special about this marine area. That was about three years ago.

More recently, last year we developed a marine stewardship site initiative with our colleagues in San Juan County. We created a steering committee comprised of non-government organizations on both sides of the border. Included in there are first nations and tribal councils on both sides of the border. My friend Chief Vern Jacks is a member of that body.

We were also able because I think we captured the imagination of many, dare I say, bureaucrats and convinced them that we were just trying to do something. So we have provincial government and federal government representatives on that body as well, and of course we have the local governments.

• 1200

So here we have an infrastructure, if you will, a steering committee of all levels of government. But you know what we hear most often is people want to help us but there's no framework to be able to do that. So we have local government mobilized, committing resources, and we have a brochure that we've developed with our colleagues on the other side to promote awareness. We want to take an enabling approach rather than a regulatory approach. Regulation may have its place, and I certainly acknowledge the comments Michelle made, that as soon as we say no take, the hairs go up on people's necks. So we need to be careful about what we're thinking. We need a tool kit that allows us to go through a vast array of voluntary stewardship initiatives. We have people on the ground, willing and ready.

We think Bill C-10 has the potential to be respectful, to provide procedural certainty, and most importantly to be a catalyst to harness resources so that we can channel them, because right now there are so many different agencies, so many different initiatives. We have the Orca Pass initiative from the non-government organizations in this area; we have the marine sanctuary proposal that came from our American colleagues; we have the Georgia Strait crossing pipeline going right through this area. There has never been more of a time for a call for action.

We need Bill C-10 to the point that our council, 26 members representing this area, in partnership with a lot of different agencies, would offer to you that we are willing to be the pilot. You need a willing place. One size does not fit all. What will work in the Gulf Islands will not work necessarily in Prince Rupert or on the east coast. But given Bill C-10 and the uncertainties that come with it, we'd like to work with you and be able to have a pilot happen in the Salish Sea so we can show that Bill C-10 can work. We're ready. We're waiting for it.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. McIntosh.

To close this session, we have Mr. Randy Burke from Bluewater Adventures Ltd. Mr. Burke.

Mr. Randy Burke (President, Bluewater Adventures Ltd.; President, Gwaii Haanas Tour Operators Association): First of all, I'd like to say thank you to the chair and the committee members for allowing me to speak today.

My name is Randy Burke, and I'd like to clarify two things at first. I am the president of Bluewater Adventures Ltd., which is one of the original ecotourism companies in British Columbia, going back 27 years to 1974. But I'm also the president of the Gwaii Haanas Tour Operators Association, and that may not be on the agenda. I'd like to correct that at this point: I am here to represent the Gwaii Haanas Tour Operators Association as well. My focus thereby is going to be on Gwaii Haanas, which is an area that may become protected if Bill C-10 is passed as a marine conservation area.

The Gwaii Haanas Tour Operators Association represents 18 companies. The industry association was formed to foster all of the operations, ethics, and good communication between managers and other stakeholders in Gwaii Haanas. An interesting note is that 70% of the people who visit Gwaii Haanas are guided. They are not independent people; they come along with commercial operators to visit the Gwaii Haanas South Moresby National Park Reserve Haida heritage site. And our association represents 70% of those guided visitors.

As small-business people, we do not necessarily always welcome government regulation. However, these companies are ecotourism companies—sea kayak companies, boat educational tour companies and sailboats. We carry 10 to 15 people, small group sizes, in a sustainable manner. I would emphasize that ecotourism needs a wilderness land and ocean base to survive.

• 1205

Protected areas such as Gwaii Haanas South Moresby gain a profile that attracts visitation and thereby also sustains ecotourism operators such as myself. The majority of our members support marine conservation areas and the passing of Bill C-10.

The specific aspect of this legislation that supports education and visitation also supports ecotourism. This is good for the ecotourism business. Legislation that is enacted only to protect fish stocks or natural resources is a laudable undertaking. However, I see that Bill C-10 would also support the interests and needs of Canadians to learn about the wonders of the ocean and this coast and education.

In 1987 when the national campaign to save Gwaii Haanas South Moresby was underway, I believe that education was a key factor. Canadians were able to experience the wonders of the area by travelling with wilderness tour operators, who today form the Gwaii Haanas Tour Operators Association. Direct experience is a much more powerful tool for education than simply reading an article in a magazine. It motivates people to care. Education is certainly what is needed.

Right now Canadians generally support the concept of marine conservation areas, but I suggest that they really don't know how special our coasts are. Out of sight, out of mind remains a big hurdle to overcome, but it does not reduce the need.

Let me speak personally for a moment. I've spent 14 years sailing in the waters of Gwaii Haanas, 14 summers interacting with the whales, the birds, the intertidal creatures along the shore, and the fish. Our tours are educational. Each trip is guided by a noted biologist educator. That's our focus.

I believe that our Pacific coast is the most special coastline in the world, not simply because of the majestic mountain scenery but because these oceans are alive and vibrant, unlike other oceans in the world. For example, this past summer we had trips where we saw 75 different humpback whales, the most we have ever seen. We had trips in August where we saw sperm whales, and twice we saw fin whales, the second-largest species of mammal on the earth. This area is very special.

However, in my 14 years I've also seen changes in Gwaii Haanas. I'm not much of a fisher. I used to say that we could catch dinner in 15 minutes. It isn't the same any more. The commercial rockfish boats came through, and now, I have to admit, I often don't try any more.

I'd like to emphasize that you should not wait any longer to pass this legislation. Please don't wait any longer.

In conclusion, one of the strengths of this legislation is the requirement for consultation. However, I have a concern. This consultation needs to include tourism. Too often in land use and ocean-based resource decisions, tourism has been excluded. Tourism will soon be the number one industry in British Columbia. Ecotourism is the fastest-growing sector of tourism worldwide. Sustainable small-scale ecotourism can be a valuable partner for marine conservation. I trust that you recognize this.

Along with fisheries, ecotourism also uses the ocean and sustainably. Marine conservation areas will be good for ecotourism.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Burke.

I would like to thank all of you for a great variety of views on the subject, which you expressed with a lot of conviction on all sides. We appreciate your input.

There are 50 minutes left. We will now go to questions. Up first is Mr. Cummins.

• 1210

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here.

As you know, we wanted to examine this bill in the fisheries committee because there are a number of issues that I think are quite relevant to the management of the fisheries resource. Unfortunately, we didn't get the opportunity, but I'm here today.

In a letter to the committee Ms. James noted that this proposed legislation requires management advisory committees in each marine conservation area to advise the minister on development, implementation, management plans, and so on. It brings up the question about who's in charge. Constitutionally, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has an obligation to manage the fisheries resource. It seems to me that this bill erodes his authority. I wonder, Ms. James, if you have any comments on that notion.

Ms. Michelle James: Thank you, Mr. Cummins. It does. It erodes the minister's authority largely because there is quite a large process to develop fishery management plans, but decisions have to be made on a daily basis. So when you're talking about managing fisheries within an MCA, if indeed there is an additional requirement to have another committee look at all these fishery management plans and approve them, that's over and above a system that has been put in place that includes stakeholders, environmentalists, first nations, and commercial fishermen. They all come together to put together these integrated fishery management plans, and this adds another layer to it.

Also, in many instances some of these fishery management decisions have to be made very quickly, particularly in fisheries such as roe herring and salmon. Rules are set out in advance, but you may have to change things at the last minute if things don't turn out the way you thought they would. If you have to go back to a committee, that could potentially slow the process down and cause difficulty. So it's really a matter of uncertainty as to how big a role these committees are going to have in the day-to-day management and whether they're going to cause problems. It certainly provides another layer and another level of uncertainty in an already uncertain business.

Mr. John Cummins: Subclause 10(1) of the bill says:

The Minister shall provide opportunities for consultation with relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies and affected coastal communities, aboriginal organizations and bodies established under land claims agreements, and with any other persons and bodies

It fails to mention the fishing industry. Fishermen and processors are not mentioned in the bill at all. Is this of concern to your organization, Ms. James?

Ms. Michelle James: Yes, it's of great concern. I don't think it's just fishermen. It's also aquaculturists and people who make their living on the ocean. I think that for those who are using marine resources in whatever fashion for economic activities not to be mentioned is of great concern to anybody who utilizes these resources.

Mr. John Cummins: The bill has something to do, then, with the management of the fisheries resource. It may be able to deal in some way with critters who have limited mobility, such as sea urchins and goeducks, but it does nothing for more mobile critters, such as salmon and halibut. Ms. James, I'm wondering, and perhaps you are too, about the purpose of this bill. How is it going to improve the management of the Fisheries Act, or is it going to improve it, in your estimation?

Ms. Michelle James: Fisheries management is a very complex system, depending on what fisheries are being managed and how no-take zones are done and where they're done. A no-take zone doesn't have any effect on salmon because salmon are Ferraris—they race all over the north Pacific. But refugia for rockfish, for example, can be of great benefit to fishery management. But those kinds of things are already being done within fisheries management. Large areas have been set aside as rockfish refugia, no-take for rockfish, that really help in the sustainable management of that fishery. So we already have systems in place within the Fisheries Act and the Oceans Act to cover off the sustainability aspects of the management of seafood resources and marine resources in British Columbia. All of those things are covered.

• 1215

The only thing that is perhaps not covered by the Oceans Act and the Fisheries Act is interpretation, public visitation, and all those things Parks Canada does. However, we believe those can be handled in a very different way from requiring this full new bill.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you.

Again, I have more questions on this management area; perhaps we can turn to it later. But I would like to raise this issue of compensation. Earlier, the Mayor of Port Clements suggested that as a result of the creation of a national park at South Moresby, employment in the area had dropped, and so on. The communities there have obviously not been compensated.

There's no provision, as I understand it, for compensation in this bill for fishermen who lose opportunities. The bill seems to forget that fishing is not a privilege extended by the minister, but a right that extends back to the Magna Carta. Yet there's no compensation for fishermen who are going to lose opportunities. Is that a concern of your organization?

Ms. Michelle James: Absolutely. When people are afraid of losing their livelihoods—and without any compensation they are going to get very concerned—you're not going to have the public support for any of these types of things. There is a lot of concern out there that certain people will use this as a potential tool to shut commercial activities out of some fairly large areas.

While the bill allows for activities in these areas, it's very much set up as something that happens over time. It's not certain. People who are investors in this business are sitting there saying, “Well, what happens if they take out South Moresby as an area for commercial fishing?” Of the herring catch in British Columbia, one-fifth happens around that area, and it's at a 20% harvest rate. It's conservatively managed.

There is fear out there that livelihoods are going to be taken away. These are not small areas we're talking about. The flexibility is there in the bill to be very harmful to coastal communities, in terms of their economic well-being. The bill's ability to put MCAs in place without any kind of parliamentary oversight or provincial consideration for the economy here, provides people with a great deal of concern.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for Mr. Winn-Williams. You mentioned something we talked about earlier.

Ms. Michelle James: Mr. Winn-Williams had to leave.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'll just ask the question anyway, to anybody who wants to comment. Maybe it doesn't apply now.

On the consultation process in clause 10, there was some uncertainty raised, both in committee and by others earlier, that there could be a marine conservation area established without consultation, if the area were under the jurisdiction of the federal government only.

We've sort of been discussing the idea of having an amendment that would include consultation in the bill for areas covered under section 5 of the act too, in other words, lands covered, owned, or in the jurisdiction of the federal government. Would you see that as a good thing? Or maybe it doesn't directly affect your friend.

The Chair: Can we pick it up from your group, Ms. James, or one other?

Mr. McNally wants to make the consultation process refer to any jurisdictional lands, regardless of whether there's provincial ownership or administration or it's under dispute. So the province would have to be consulted in any circumstances.

• 1220

Mr. Gordon McIntosh: I can offer a comment from a local government point of view. Local governments survive or don't survive by their ability to consult with interests. So we take very seriously the ability to include all the various interests.

I agree with the notion of providing a little more procedural certainty on what consultation means, because consultation now is almost beginning to get a bad rap. We need a process that gives better certainty for involvement and checkpoints or criteria for success, so consultation means something meaningful from the grassroots local government, which is accountable to provincial government, and from the provincial government then to the federal government. Strengthening that would help people of all interests know they would be heard.

Ms. Michelle James: If I could add to that, we believe the provincial government needs to have a strong say in any areas that affect their jurisdiction. Provincial jurisdiction is quite broad in the ocean area, in terms of permitting, for instance, aquaculture and breed plants. There is also the jurisdictional issue of the land underneath the ocean belonging to the provincial government if it's between the jaws of land, and that sort of thing.

The jaws of land, in British Columbia, happen to cover most of British Columbia's coastal areas, just because of the nature of the British Columbia coast. So really, this bill should include approval of the provincial government in the creation of any MCAs.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I would first commend the people who testified today. Certainly the presentations were well prepared and well presented.

For Ms. James, I don't see the component in the bill that takes the responsibility for managing the fishery away from the minister, from DFO. That doesn't ring true. If it's there, if somebody could point it out to me, I'd appreciate that.

Currently, if a sector of the industry experiences a reduction in quota or a temporary closure because of concerns for conservation or status of the stock, is there a compensation mechanism?

I know on the east coast there was the TAGS program, and compensation came into effect with the downturn in the cod fishery. But right now, are there compensation mechanisms in place for reductions in quota?

Ms. Michelle James: No, there are not. There are no compensation mechanisms in place when there is a change because of management due to conservation. There shouldn't be; we're not saying there should be. This is not what we're talking about here.

We are talking about the possibility of taking areas of the coast where there are no conservation issues, and closing them off to provide a representative area of Canada for preservation into the future, as possibly a marine park, if you will.

So it's not a conservation issue. A land-based example would be the trapping of foxes. If foxes were all over the place, there were traplines everywhere, and there were a conservation issue, you would be told you could only have so many traplines. But when you create a park, you put the park in place and say there can be no traplines, if that's indeed what happens with the park. In these cases those trapline owners would be compensated, because there wasn't a conservation issue there; it was simply an issue of saying we want to preserve this for the future of the people of Canada, so you're out of here.

• 1225

It's the same thing, for example, in South Moresby. Potentially, if there are no-take zones affecting shellfish fisheries that have no conservation issues... For instance, it's a 1% harvest rate in goeyduc, but it's in an area where if there were a no-take zone established, they'd say okay, that's out of your fishing area. Those areas would be taken out of the total biomass in the calculation of that 1% TAC and would be gone forever for access by those people.

It's not a conservation issue. We're not asking for compensation because of conservation, because that happens all the time. When rockfish refugia areas were put in place for conservation, fishermen were not compensated for this, nor should they have been.

This is quite a different situation, creating areas for potentially... And I'm not saying it necessarily would be no-take areas, because marine conservation areas are not no-take areas, but for the no-take areas put there for preservation for public purpose, not for conservation, there should be compensation.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to echo Mr. Cuzner's thanks to all of the presenters this morning and also for your briefs, which have been very well thought out and well represented. Thank you very much.

I have a question for Mr. Burke and Ms. James. You spoke about the need for consultation. You specifically said we need to include the tourism industry. Ms. James, in your brief you also spoke about specifically including in clause 9—and then Mr. Cummins referred to clause 10, but I know he was speaking about clause 9—harvesting and farming people who make their livelihoods from harvesting and farming marine resources.

Clause 9 deals with the management plans. Clause 10 deals with the consultations Mr. McNally asked about. Clause 11 deals with the management advisory boards. In all three clauses the minister is required to consult with such other persons or bodies as the minister considers appropriate.

Do you not find this sufficient? It excludes you, but it also leaves open the possibility. Right now ecotourism is an integral part of the northern coastal communities. If we start limiting it, aren't we worried that there may be a time we need to add additional people? Why would you feel excluded? You are very much a part of why these marine conservation areas would work.

Mr. Randy Burke: Thanks very much for the question. I'll respond first, if I may.

Ecotourism is a relatively new industry. It does not have the historic standing with government. As an example, I would point out that here in British Columbia we have a ministry of forests, but we do not now have a ministry of tourism. There are some examples such as this where tourism, for whatever reason, has not been deemed necessarily to be at the table.

This situation is certainly changing, but I would simply like to voice that it is important and tourism needs to be there. It would be unfortunate if the minister, through an oversight or for whatever reason, did not consult with tourism in the consultation process.

The Chair: Ms. James, would you respond briefly?

Ms. Michelle James: I could respond from the seafood business end.

It's interesting, people started saying there's a partial list here but not a full list. It's almost better if it just said all stakeholders or something like that. People tend to get their backs up when they see a partial list and not a full list. You are correct in saying, yes, if you want a full list, it's going to be a fairly long clause of the act, because there are many people who need to be consulted. Recognition should also have something to do with the representation in size and all those sorts of things.

• 1230

Where the concern about not being there came from was the fact that some people are listed, yet the people who make their livelihoods are not. It's almost better not to list anybody than to leave people out so they can look at it and say, “What do you mean? Why those guys and not us?”

The Chair: Thank you.

In fairness to the other three participants, if they want to add to any of these comments, they're welcome to intervene briefly.

Yes, Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Ms. James, I believe it was in your response to Mr. McNally's question that you expressed some concern that marine conservation areas would be established—I think you used these words—“without parliamentary oversight”.

if I could refer you to the bill, help me understand how we can make this stronger, if this is your concern. Actually under clause 7 of the bill, before a marine conservation area can be created or is proposed, the minister must file with both houses of Parliament a report with information on consultations and an interim management plan, and thereafter the proposal is referred to the standing committee to examine it.

Does this help with your concern?

Ms. Michelle James: The point made in an earlier presentation was that it takes an act of Parliament to get rid of one of these things, so why wouldn't it take an act of Parliament to put one in? We're looking for parliamentary approval of this, and also provincial approval. Those two things in the bill would make it a lot more acceptable.

When you say “oversight”, yes, there are committees; and these committees obviously don't even come to British Columbia, because it's expensive. A committee discussing this in Ottawa says yes, we see this Parks Canada proposal, it looks pretty good, we're going to send it to these other committees. And yes, maybe it gets approved, and then with an Order in Council the thing's created. This is not good enough from the perspective of the people in British Columbia who have to deal with it and are affected by it.

We're looking to strengthen the approval process, because quite frankly the kind of committee review you're talking about is unfortunately fairly meaningless to the people who live in Tofino or Prince Rupert or wherever. They would like to be able to go to their parliamentarian or MLA and have a say in this.

The Chair: Mr. McIntosh.

Mr. Gordon McIntosh: I'd like to add an additional comment to what Michelle is saying, because I quite agree that the approval process...

What we've learned on the ground as a local government is that it's not only at the end of the process where approval is needed. What we should be looking for, a way to strengthen this bill, is to possibly approve the process itself, and the development of the stakeholder list, and the procedural certainty as to how the process will unfold, at the beginning. Because so often what happens is that we're in the eleventh hour, 59th minute, and the appropriate stakeholders have not been heard; due process in the eyes of some has not been covered.

I'd like to strengthen what Michelle said and suggest the kind of feasibility process, if you will, also be included for consideration of some kind of approval.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Again, Mr. McIntosh and Ms. James—and just to conclude, because I'm sure some others will have questions—I'd like you to look at clause 7 again, because it actually does provide for parliamentary debate.

Ms. James, when you mentioned talking to your member of Parliament or MLA, this actually does give an opportunity for that. It's not just the committee itself that debates the proposal; it will actually be debated in Parliament before it is actually established.

• 1235

Mr. Gordon McIntosh: Yes, we're well aware of this, but again, our experience on the ground is that responsible marine stewardship requires more than just the federal government, more than just a federal debate. It requires extensive consultation. For them to work effectively we need volunteer stewards on the ground, or else these become very expensive areas to manage. We need consultation with the major economic interests so that these things are supported. This speaks to resources, I might add as well, that go into this kind of a process.

We're well aware of the approval process at the end. It's really more at the beginning, at the grassroots, that should be strengthened.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McIntosh. It's been brought up before, and we're extremely conscious of this part of it.

Ms. Murray.

Ms. Anne Murray: May I comment?

I agree with what Gordon's saying, but I would express a concern that we don't get totally bogged down in any process, because we've already waited some years for this bill. It's been through various other names and titles and so on and we've been waiting around for it. Then if the whole process of actually putting anything in the schedule for specific sites gets bogged down, too, we'll be waiting years. The opportunities may well be lost; the ecosystems may get degraded. And when we end up getting our special site for the whole of Canada and Canadians, it may not be quite as special as it would have been if we'd acted quickly.

So I would suggest that whatever process is suggested for the amendment, there's some indication that it should be made in a timely manner and not dragged out over years and years.

The Chair: But perhaps it should be.

Those of you so interested in this crucial part of it might want to see what's happened in the northern part Lake Superior, where a feasibility study on a marine conservation area has lasted about two years now. There were people from the community who were for it, and others who expressed a lot of concerns about various components of the project. This went to a sort of quasi-arbitrator, who produced a report. The department is committed to producing a plan that will go before the community before it goes anywhere at all.

It's taken two years, but it's been two years well spent. At the end of it, if there's no consensus, it probably will not go anywhere. But if there is a consensus, and it looks as if there will be, then it will go forward.

So let's take a little more time at the start and come to a decision that really has the backing of the total community. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

Mr. Cummins, have you any more questions?

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. James, I take from your report to the committee that you may be as confused as I am as to the actual purpose of the act. If the purpose of the act is to protect fish and fish habitat, the fisheries minister has all the authority needed to do that. In fact, the minister not only has the authority, but also the obligation to manage the fisheries resource and to protect it and fish habitat.

Now, there's no similar or comparable requirement for any land-based wildlife resource or piece of land; we just don't have it. So the establishment of national parks on land seems to make some sense. But in the fisheries and in the ocean, I'm not sure the same is true.

In fact it seems, as I said before, that by interfering with this constitutional obligation the minister has, the requirement for consultation with the heritage minister may inhibit the minister somewhat in fulfilling this obligation. I don't know whether you're the person to ask on this, but I'd certainly like your comment on it, Ms. James.

Ms. Michelle James: The Fisheries Act and the Oceans Act provide all of the tools necessary to allow for the wise management and sustainable management of our marine resources, along with the other provincial acts. So in terms of sustainability of marine resources, this act is redundant, because the tools are all there in other acts. I would say the only thing this act adds is the idea of preserving for the public the opportunity to view and look at particular areas untouched. And that is Parks Canada's mandate.

• 1240

Now, the problem is that the management of fisheries and resources is a very complex and species-dependent activity. If the purpose of this act is to conserve and that kind of thing, all the tools are already in the tool kit, in the Fisheries Act and the Oceans Act. They're actually very strong pieces of legislation. Everybody says the Fisheries Act is the strongest piece of environmental legislation in Canada. As you say, it doesn't exist in other areas.

There is a lot of overlap and potential for duplication, and not a lot of comfort in the act that it's going to be dealt with. When I look at it, the act doesn't give our membership, which is very broad and coast-wide, any comfort that better fisheries management is on the way because this act's going to be there. I think if people are looking at it as a conservation tool, in terms of the resource, it's the wrong act to look at.

If people are looking at it as a way to have someone manage interpretation and deal with things in a park-like manner, that's okay, but it should be approved under the Oceans Act and administered by Parks Canada, rather than actually set up under Parks Canada. This is certainly our view, because all the tools for conservation and wise management of marine resources are in the current tool kit.

Mr. John Cummins: Here is a sort of clean-up question, because I think my time is running out.

You talk about wise management and in your comments earlier mentioned the notion of a 1% harvest rate for goeyduc. There are probably people around this table who couldn't tell the difference between a goeyduc and a mallard, but that's another story. I just wonder if you would explain this notion of a 1% harvest rate so that people might have some understanding of what you're talking about.

Ms. Michelle James: Generally, in fisheries management they figure out what the biomass is out there. With goeyduc, for instance, there's what they call a harvestable biomass. Areas deeper than one can dive to, for example, are excluded. Areas set aside for research and preservation are outside it. These are not included in the biomass.

For example, Scott Islands area has been closed to fishing because it may some day be a marine protected area, and of course places like Broken Islands are closed to fishing. In areas that are open to fishing they figure out the available number of animals, and each year there can be a harvest of 1% of those animals. It's very conservative. And that's just one example.

We have 82 species of commercially harvested seafood in British Columbia, and they're all managed quite differently. Different species can handle different harvest rates. They are managed conservatively by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Some of these species move from place to place; others settle in one place. The benefits of no-take zones can be different, depending on the species. Actually, there's absolutely no benefit for goeyduc management in having no-take areas, other than to have areas that simply nobody goes to. In terms of conservation of the resource, there is no purpose, but if it were preservation, there is a purpose.

• 1245

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. McNally, do you have any other questions?

Mr. Grant McNally: No.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I did in fact think that goeyduc was just part of the legacy left behind from the Exxon Valdez. I guess I was a little misinformed on that.

The Chair: I was wondering too whether we are all so completely innocent here that we don't know about marine birds at all, but we have seen a few in our lives.

A voice: Did he say marine birds?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Burke and Ms. Murray, I guess there's a sense of urgency in your message and in your presentation. Could you reiterate why you see it as so imperative to bring this legislation forward?

Ms. Anne Murray: Yes, I'd like to say that again. I hope I got that impression over in my brief.

We have looked at this for some years, as I mentioned—the idea of having some representative areas—and I think the important thing is that while we recognize fisheries resources are very important, they're only one component of the ecosystem. We need areas where the ecosystem as a whole is looked at and protected, so that we're not just thinking about fisheries, but about birds and mammals and crustaceans and so on as well, and also thinking about people and the opportunities a park gives for people to learn about, and relax by, and enjoy the ocean, and become educated—to have that experience Randy described.

The hands-on experience is absolutely invaluable. You can't replace an actual experience with watching something on television. The only way is to go out and experience it yourself.

Ecotourism is growing very rapidly. I've just come back from a trip to Australia, where they have marine conservation areas, marine parks, and so on. The ecotourism opportunities are growing enormously. I had previously been in Australia fifteen years ago and really noticed the difference, now that many of the marine parks have been set up, in what they've done to the nearby communities. Every hotel and information place has something about these trips. Some are well managed, some are not so well managed.

I think Parks Canada has a good reputation as the manager of parks around Canada. Having this as the core in certain limited areas of our coast would really set a good framework for setting up some ecotourism operators. People are going to come anyway. I'd like to see their visits managed somewhat, and not just have people descending on the area. Human disturbance of that kind can be just as harmful as overfishing or putting in some industry that's unsuitable for an area.

We want some sort of structure for managing those visits. That's particularly of concern with us regarding important bird areas, which are all over that coastal region I described earlier.

So I can see a lot of reasons why we should be moving forward with this bill and getting Parks Canada to set up two, three, or four sites—and probably that's all it will be for quite a while—but if we can get those sites, then we'll move ahead provincially with the marine protected areas and in other more specific sites of conservation interest.

I really think the time is ripe. The rest of the world is doing this. Why would Canada, with its wonderful biodiversity—and especially British Columbia—why would it be lagging behind the rest of the world? I thought we should be a world leader in this.

Thank you.

Mr. Randy Burke: If I could add my comments to that one, what I see happening here on the land in British Columbia is that ecotourism is, like forestry, down to some of the last valleys. If you need a wilderness base to survive, ecotourism is only marginally being viewed and having its needs taken into account when decisions on land use are being considered.

• 1250

Here on the ocean, I think the need for urgency arises because, as you well know, other industries are expanding here along the coast. The aquaculture industry is planning to move north onto the north coast. There is potential for the oil and gas industry. I think that what we are going to see is the coast becoming carved up more and more into various areas. That carving-up process needs to include marine conservation areas, because if time moves on too fast, the opportunities will be reduced.

Since things always take longer than we expect—it's a human trait—we can also agree that by moving ahead faster we will reduce somewhat the level of further degradation of marine resources that may already be happening now.

Thank you.

Mr. Gordon McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add to Randy and Anne's comment. They come from a reactive approach—which I agree with—in saying that there is a need, an urgent need. I'd like to approach it from an opportunistic point of view.

The local, provincial, and federal governments are all mobilized. In our riding we have MP Gary Lunn. Now, we have a transborder situation where we're trying to duplicate a marine stewardship system that's already happening not 15 kilometres from where we operate. There's simply a boundary between us. I'd like to speak to the opportunity of leveraging local, provincial, and—potentially—federal resources to harness that. The opportunity is there. We're ready. We have a tremendous capacity to move, so in addition to the need, the opportunity is also there.

The Chair: Before we close, I wanted to ask Ms. James something on the question of the jurisdictions of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Canadian Heritage under subclause 9(4), which reads:

Provisions of a management plan respecting fishing, aquaculture, fisheries management, marine navigation and marine safety are subject to agreement between the Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Does that mean that if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans doesn't agree, it doesn't happen?

Ms. Michelle James: I think it's a process issue. I don't really know exactly what the legalese means, but what it means broadly is that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must consult with the Minister of Canadian Heritage—and rightly so.

There's a whole process issue around it that people are very concerned about, because these marine conservation areas will potentially be large areas. I think we talked about 5,000 square kilometres or something of sea in the Gulf Islands area. I don't know how big the park is, but the circles I've seen are fairly large.

So it adds another layer of approval, shall we say, and discussions in a situation that's already very complex. I think that people, certainly our members, look at it and say, what does this mean? This does not give us any comfort that things will be...

Nobody is expecting things to be as before, but they're doing their job of conserving, they're doing the job of making big sacrifices to make sure that the management of these fisheries is conservative, and that sort of thing. They just don't understand how all these things will work together because of the agreements required between ministries.

It's already a very complex situation. This could add a layer of complexity, one that has not really been—certainly to my mind—well explained to the people in the industry as to what all that means. They have to consult, but I don't know who gets to write the bottom line here, whether it's the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I don't understand that.

• 1255

The Chair: Under this clause, the fisheries minister has a veto right. If he doesn't agree to any plan, it doesn't go forward. He has a total veto right on anything regarding his jurisdiction. In other words, it sets it out very clearly here:

9.(4) Provisions of a management plan respecting fishing, aquaculture, fisheries management, marine navigation and marine safety are subject to an agreement between the Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans says nay on the representations from your group and others, that's it, it doesn't happen.

Ms. Michelle James: The current fishery management process here is that the scientists come up with what they believe should be caught. That goes through a review process and then goes out for consultation with all stakeholders, environmentalists, and all those things. Then it comes back to the minister.

The process goes from staff in British Columbia, and some of these fishery management plans are approved by the minister, and some are approved locally. It's a process that tends to take all year, going from the science all the way to the management.

If there is an additional process that requires consultation with the Minister of Canadian Heritage, all we're saying is this is starting to look really complex and quite difficult. It's hard enough right now to get a fishery management plan approved by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, let alone going through another process. So it is a real concern that we're just adding layer upon layer.

If you're talking conservation, the tools are all there with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. If, for example, Parks Canada felt that the minister wasn't doing his job in their area, I could see some process for them intervening in that. But it's difficult enough to get a fishery management plan approved now, let alone with this extra involvement.

The other thing you talked about is aquaculture. That's provincial jurisdiction, and there is no approval by the province.

The Chair: We've reached that time.

I thank all the interveners for being there today. Thank you very much for your input and your concerns and opinions. We appreciate it.

The meeting is adjourned.