Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 2, 1995

.0916

[English]

The Chairman: We're going to start almost on time. That's not bad. We keep getting better at this. One of these days we'll show up early.

First things first, before we get into our list of witnesses. As a result of yesterday's meetings and hearings, a number of issues came up. There seemed to be a tremendous amount of confusion with some of our witnesses yesterday as to the intent of this act in two regards, one dealing specifically with powers to the minister and the other dealing with fees.

On the fee side of it, I think we were able to clarify that for some of the witnesses who had been unfortunately misled about the intent of the act and the impact of the act with respect to fees. But on the issue of powers to the minister, at a round table meeting of certain fisheries groups in Cape Breton about a week ago, Mr. Robert Chisholm, who's the New Democratic Party critic, spoke about the Oceans Act. It's fairly obvious that he had not sought a briefing from the department nor perhaps even read the act. He indicated to the group that this bill gives unusual powers to the minister that would allow the minister to privatize the industry.

Needless to say, we had some very legitimately concerned representatives of various fisheries groups at our hearings out of Halifax yesterday, who were seeking an assurance that the new powers given to the minister in this act would not allow for that type of privatization, and secondly, that this bill in no way has any impact on fees for service in the fisheries. We know it does in the marine transportation sector under the new powers that have been given to the minister with respect to the coast guard.

The third issue - and we'll get this done as quickly as we can - dealt with the consultative process. From what I've been given, I think there's been a very broad and long, perhaps too long, consultative process leading up to the bill, but as is the nature of consultation, it's never enough or it's too much. You always try to balance it. So I would also like it if at some point, either after this brief presentation or maybe later in the morning when it becomes available, somebody could, for the record, indicate the type of consultative process that has been gone through so that if other witnesses come forward, the committee members will be able to assist them.

That being said and done, here we go.

Mr. Scott Parsons (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Scott Parsons from Fisheries and Oceans, and with me I have Cheryl Fraser, the acting ADM of policy, and Mike Turner, who is really the ADM in charge of the coast guard.

When I made my opening remarks to the committee in the briefing about the Canada Oceans Act, I talked at some length about the structure of the act, what's in the act and so on; I emphasized what's in the act. I understand, based on some feedback I had from yesterday's meeting and in light of your comments a moment ago, that some of the witnesses who have been appearing before the committee have been confused about what the Canada Oceans Act is intended to do and what it is not intended to do.

I know the issue of fisheries licence fees has arisen, as well as licensing allocation in some instances, co-management and partnership issues. In fact, I'm not sure whether the witnesses actually said it here, but in the same context, I've seen in the press clippings in the media references to individual quotas, as you referred to, privatization of the industry, turning it over to offshore companies and those sorts of statements.

.0920

I'd like to clarify for the record that this act, the Canada Oceans Act, has nothing to do with fisheries licence fees, fisheries licence and allocation issues, or the so-called co-management partnership issue in the fisheries, which the department is having other discussions with the industry on. And most definitely, without any equivocation, this act has nothing to do with the issue of individual quota setting or privatization issues in the fisheries. This is not a fisheries management act. Fisheries management at the moment is managed under the Fisheries Act and will continue to be managed through the Fisheries Act.

On the fisheries licence fees, there have been extensive consultations across the country with the industry. That doesn't mean everybody is onside with it, of course, but there have been extensive consultations. The fisheries licence fees are in fact dealt with under mechanisms in the existing Fisheries Act.

There have been extensive consultations across the country on the development of the Oceans Act. Obviously not everybody in the country has been briefed on this issue, as one would expect, but a lot of groups have been briefed, and some of those groups have appeared before this committee.

Part I of the act, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, in essence deals with the incorporation of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act and so forth into a combined piece of legislation. There are new zones established, such as the contiguous zone, which has nothing to do with fisheries issues, and the exclusive economic zone, which in essence has nothing additional to do with fisheries issues, because in fact we already have a 200-mile fishery zone, which is dealt with through existing mechanisms. So there's nothing in that part of the act that has any relevance to these sorts of issues.

Part II of the act, which talks about the development of an oceans management strategy, does give a leadership role to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in terms of bringing together the initiatives of various government departments that are involved with the oceans and have a lead role with respect to coastal zone management issues and so forth. There's a commitment in there to develop integrated oceans management plans involving stakeholders. There's a heavy emphasis on the business of involving stakeholders.

Part III of the act, which is headed ``Powers, Duties and Functions of the Minister'', talks about two or three major issues. It talks about the integration of the coast guard and DFO, and I understand the committee will be receiving a briefing next week from the commissioner of the coast guard on that. It deals with marine scientific issues, such as conduct of research and so forth. There is a general provision dealing with fees, but that is not the mechanism. That has nothing to do with the fisheries licence fee issue.

There is an issue that some witnesses appearing before this committee may raise in connection with that fee provision, which is the introduction of marine service fees. Mr. Turner can comment on that this morning, but I don't want to take up the time of your other witnesses. Given that you'll have a briefing by the coast guard next week, perhaps there will be adequate opportunity then to go into more detail on that issue.

In summary, this act has virtually nothing to do with fisheries. It is not the means; it is not the vehicle for the kinds of changes in fisheries management that are being discussed with the industry at the moment. As I said, the fisheries licence fees, which are a controversial issue, are provided for and are being implemented under existing provisions of the Fisheries Act.

If legislative changes are required to deal with co-management partnership issues and so forth, then these would be addressed through amendments to the Fisheries Act, not through the Canada Oceans Act.

.0925

The Chairman: That's clear as a bell to me and it was yesterday, as well. But for the record, since there seemed to be a tremendous amount of anxiety created by a misreading of the legislation - or, in some cases, a non-reading of the legislation - I just want to clarify it. The state of the Atlantic fishery is such that anybody who goes around fear-mongering can cause a tremendous amount of anxiety.

I want to thank you for coming this quickly today to clarify that for the record. From now on, Mr. Parsons, when somebody says prove it to me, I'm going to send them your comments in Hansard. I'll give them your home phone number too, okay?

Mr. Parsons: Give them my phone number, not my home phone number.

The Chairman: I have a question that's sort of related. It's going to come up, and it may come up before we have a chance to have the commissioner from the Canadian Coast Guard in next week. It deals with those part III provisions - I don't know what the number is - dealing with fees.

I have two questions. First, under current legislation, before the responsibilities for coast guard have been passed over to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, is there any legislative framework for the setting of those fees?

Ms Cheryl Fraser (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Yes. The present arrangements would be to put the fees in place under the Financial Administration Act provisions. That had been the plan and the intent until the decision was made to come forward with the Oceans Act.

In fact, I'm advised that the provision that has been included in the Oceans Act is essentially the same text, the same boiler-plate, if I can use that expression, that Treasury Board is asking departments to generally include in any legislation of this type.

The Chairman: What is the difference in process if I want to affix a fee for a particular service now, under the Financial Administration Act? Could you very briefly tell me what that is and how it would be different with the provisions under Bill C-98?

Mr. Michael Turner (Deputy Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard): The provisions under the Financial Administration Act, which we now use in some cases, would require the development of regulations under that act, the usual consultation process, the approval through special committee of cabinet, gazetting, and final approval by Governor in Council after the consultation period.

The provisions under the Oceans Act are slightly different. I apologize that I don't have a copy in front of me, but my understanding is that they would allow a little more latitude to the minister in establishing the nature and type of fee on the one hand. On the other hand, they also provide a greater degree of protection in the sense that they specifically limit the extent of any cost recovery to the cost of the service being provided.

The Chairman: I'll go to my second question. You just described a salad that can be a lettuce salad, an apple and lettuce salad, or a lettuce and apple salad. There are different ways you can define what a cost-recovery basis is.

One of the issues that is currently up deals with ice breaking. Apparently there are a number of proposals. One of the proposals is that any vessel that carries cargo would basically be charged a fee to cover the cost of ice-breaking, say on the east coast, even if ice-breaking was not used in the port of call that it was going into. You can sit down as a department and say it cost us $20 million, as a number, for ice breaking and therefore each ship movement in and out of these various ports will be charged a fee.

Well, that means that either some people who don't use the service are charged the fee or you can have a full cost recovery based on those who do use the service. These are two vastly different things. Both come under cost recovery, but what I'm concerned about is that under the new regulations the minister may be able to affix a fee defined as cost recovery in a way that is controversial and may not be fair. In that situation, how does this get done? Who makes that decision?

Mr. Turner: To answer your last question first, the decision is essentially made by the minister and then by his colleagues in cabinet. As to the nature of the fee, I would have to start off by just saying that it's not a proposal that the fee be structured that way; rather, it is one of several options that are now out for discussion and consultation.

There are several ways in which a fee can be structured under the regulations, whether it's the Financial Administration Act or the Oceans Act, if you gentlemen in the House should pass it. Either way, there are options as to how any kind of marine services fee could be structured, and we have several options on the table, so to speak, with illustrative numbers for the industry to look at and give us reactions to.

.0930

The Chairman: What about parliamentary committees? Where do we fit into this? I have an interest in this. I think most people who represent coastal areas and ports on all three coasts have a very major interest.

When you deal with fees, and there's a provision in this bill under clause 49 - over in the area of marine transportation, coast guard, and aids to navigation - that deals specifically with a mechanism that allows for fees, I'm wondering, where do I fit in? Where do my colleagues fit in?

Mr. Turner: I would think, sir, that you fit in, in two ways. Firstly, as individual members we would be more than happy to meet with you, brief you as to the proposals and get reaction and feedback. Secondly, in terms of this committee you will be hearing witnesses who will have, I'm sure, much to say about the fees and the options that are on the table. You will of course also have the opportunity should you wish to discuss the fees in more detail in this forum with either myself, the commissioner, or any of the experts in that area.

To go back to your earlier question, if I may for a moment, the option that you referred to of a blended or combined fee that covered all the services without distinction as to whether or not you use ice-breakers in a specific port or not is certainly one of the ones that we have costed out and put in the options paper for discussion. You're quite right that it would have the effect that in areas where the service wasn't used, you would still be paying for that portion of it because it would be a blended fee.

The general preferences we're hearing from most industry partners and most of the people we've dealt with so far is in fact for service-specific fees. The department tends to lean in that direction as well because we want the fee structured in such a way that they are transparent, that people understand what they're getting and that the fees can be structured in such a way as well so as to encourage good performance on the part of the industry. In the ice-breaking sense, we are looking at the possibility, for example, of having a sliding fee scale not only for whether you'd use the service or not - certainly the most important first characteristic - but also for whether or not the vessel seeking the assistance of the ice-breakers is, for example, double-hulled in the case of a tanker, or, for example, is of a certain power and handling characteristics, or, for example, has certain navigation technology on board that would make it safer and environmentally safer as well.

So there are possibilities to shape the fees in such a way that they encourage positive behaviour, so to speak, on behalf of all industries who would be affected. To do that they must of course move towards the service-specific model. But we have put all the models on the table with the numbers so that people can see the effects, because the impacts are very different in different ports and in different parts of the country depending on which way you were to apply the various proposals.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mrs. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Turner, I'm referring to clause 50 on page 22 of the bill, which reads:

Mr. Parsons: Because the right and privilege to fish is not granted under this bill.

Mr. Turner: If you read the rest of the clause....

Mr. Parsons: The Fisheries Act is the act that grants the minister the power to establish the privilege to fish through the issuance of licences. That is the mechanism under which fisheries licence fees are being dealt with.

Mrs. Ablonczy: That may be, but for someone like your witnesses yesterday who don't understand the niceties of the fact that a particular act may not deal with the granting of a right or privilege, when they see these words in clause 50 I think it is a very logical conclusion that this bill does indeed purport to deal with the particular right and privilege. I don't see anything in the bill that specifically precludes the minister from applying his power to fix these from the right to fish.

.0935

Mr. Parsons: I understand the point you're getting at, but you have to bear in mind there is another piece of legislation called the Fisheries Act, and that piece of legislation is very specific with respect to fisheries issues and fisheries management. That's the act that defines what fisheries means. That's the act that, in section 7, I think - it has been awhile since I dealt with fisheries specifically - grants the power to issue the licence, as to the regulations made under that act that licence fees are established. Licence fees for fisheries exist at the moment. The issue is they're being increased and not that the fees are being introduced for the first time, with the exception of one or two examples of that.

Mrs. Ablonczy: I guess my point is that if this bill does not purport to fix fees for rights or privileges relating to fishing, although the drafters of the legislation may clearly understand that it doesn't apply, I think it's a very reasonable assumption on the part of lay people to draw that conclusion. I would say, for the comfort level you've been talking about for the people in the industry, that should be clarified.

The Chairman: I think Mrs. Ablonczy raises a very valid point. This bill probably has broad support, from the letters I've received, but it is very confusing to one of the major stakeholders in that area. They are the individuals who exploit the fisheries resource - the living resource in the waters. Yesterday, anybody who was here knows it was a very difficult day. They sought assurance, and the assurance is legally here. It says in clause 50 that the minister may fix fees for products, rights or privileges provided under the Oceans Act.

There are no rights or privileges dealing with access to the fisheries in this bill, but they are in the notes to the bill. It's not explicit in the legislation. I think the point that has been made is a good one. If there's some way that it could be made more explicit, then I think it would raise that comfort level and allow some individuals to determine whether or not they have an interest in other clauses of the bill. We heard a great deal of mistrust yesterday when people asked about the impact and the real agenda. I agree with you, and I think all members do. Is there some way we can make that a little clearer?

Mr. Parsons: We thought that although the existing wording wasn't in plain English, it made it clear when it said ``products, rights and privileges provided under this act by the minister''. There are clauses in this bill that deal, for example, with coast guard services, and so on. There are clauses in this bill that deal with scientific types of services, and so forth.

The Chairman: There is some confusion about integrated management plans. Yesterday we heard people ask what that means if they are fishermen and whether they get to elect from their board. So there is some confusion there, because individuals who are in the fisheries are included in other aspects of the bill. You could say this has nothing to do with fishermen or fisheries so forget it, but it does have something to do with them. In the integrated management plans, those stakeholders will be participants on those boards and bodies that put the plan together and administer the plans. So I think that's where the confusion is coming from here, because there the fishermen have an interest in this bill.

Mrs. Ablonczy: The bill does specifically talk about oceans management. I think the definition of oceans management could logically be expanded to include access to fishing. Although that's not the intent of the bill, and you know that and we know that, it can be read into it very easily and very logically. That will continue to cause concern for the people we deal with.

Mr. Parsons: I understand the issue, and I think the way to deal with this would be for us to look at whether there are ways, as we talked at the beginning, to improve the language of the bill to -

.0940

The Chairman: Why don't we leave it at that? I think that's important, because I can clearly remember amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in the last Parliament. The deputy minister was present. Mr. Allmand asked if a specific situation happened whether the right to draw unemployment insurance would be withdrawn, and he said absolutely not. Seven months later, after the regulators got at it - forget everything that was said at committee - almost the exact situation happened. The person lost the right to collect unemployment insurance and nobody could change it. So it was a matter of clarity at the time, and I guess if members of that committee could have gone back they would have clarified it.

Sometimes what we think we're doing here may be misinterpreted further down the road with a clever lawyer. There are some clever lawyers around.

Mrs. Ablonczy: Not me.

The Chairman: Okay. Do we have that?

Will the consultative process be a little later this morning?

A voice: Yes.

The Chairman: Great. We'll do that at 11 a.m.

Mr. Parsons: There is a note being prepared for you with more detail on that.

The Chairman: Mr. Turner, does the document you referred to as a public document deal with the options on the cost-recovery fees?

Mr. Turner: Absolutely, sir. I understood that a copy was widely distributed over a press release from Minister Tobin.

The Chairman: Minister Tobin does so many press releases I'd need a press release secretary just to keep track, so I probably have it somewhere.

Mr. Turner: I'd be more than happy to provide extra copies.

The Chairman: If you could, it might be good for us to have copies with the researcher and the clerk.

Our next witnesses are from the Chamber of Maritime Commerce/Canadian Shipowners Association. Mr. Jim Campbell is the general manager, and he is joined by Mr. T. Normal Hall and Captain Réjean Lanteigne.

Captain Réjean Lanteigne (Manager, Marine Operations, Canadian Shipowners Association): Thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before this committee.

[Translation]

Good morning ladies and gentlemen.

[English]

As you mentioned, my name is Rég Lanteigne. I'm the director of marine operations for the Canadian Shipowners Association. With me this morning is Mr. Jim Campbell, general manager of the Chamber of Maritime Commerce.

I'm filling in for Mr. Hall who could not attend this morning's session because of a severe tooth problem. He apologizes for this.

[Translation]

I would also like to apologize for not having been able to prepare a French version of our brief, on account of the time. I hope that is not too much of a problem for the committee.

[English]

This presentation to you this morning is a joint one by both our organizations. It will deal with only two concerns we have with the proposed Oceans Act. These two concerns are the enshrining into legislation of the coast guard and the services the coast guard provides, and the establishment of a fee for these services. In other words, we will specifically comment on clauses 41 and 49 of Bill C-98.

I will speak first to clause 41, and Mr. Campbell, my colleague, will then speak to clause 49. Obviously, we're prepared to answer any questions afterwards on these two issues.

.0945

At the outset, I would like you and the committee to know that this presentation is not meant to be a protest. Rather, it is what we think is a contribution to what we hope will be a very constructive dialogue. Both organizations agree with the initiative that this government has undertaken to bring our economy under control. We have no objection to paying our fair share for the service provided to our member companies by the coast guard provided that, at the same time, there are consultations on the level of service required.

Mr. Hall, the president of the CSA, is a member on the recently formed Canadian Coast Guard Marine Advisory Board, whose function it is to review the services provided by the coast guard and to reduce or eliminate services that may be considered to be obsessive or outright obsolete.

We have every intention of continuing, in cooperation with government, to seek a way to make the system more cost-effective.

In addition, we support the initiative of the Oceans Act, in line with the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, and this presentation is provided to you within that theme.

First, let me give you a brief overview of what the CSA is. The CSA had its beginning in 1903, when the Dominion Marine Association was founded by Canadian shipowners. The name was changed to its present one in the latter part of the 1980s to better reflect the Canadian nature of the organization. Currently, we have twelve member companies, seven of which are in Quebec, six are in Ontario, and the balance are in the eastern part of the country. They operate 104 ships, which are all Canadian-flagged and Canadian-manned. We are primarily carriers of bulk commodities, such as grain, potash, salt and ore, although some of our members are engaged in the movement of general cargoes and containers on the eastern seaboard. We operate in the Great Lakes and on the St. Lawrence River system, as well as in the Maritimes and the Arctic.

We have copies of our 1994 annual report with us this morning, and I understand the members of the committee were provided with them. Clause 41 of the proposed bill has been reproduced in our brief for easy reference, but in the interest of time I won't reread it.

The coast guard has existed, and exists at present, without any requirement for it to be enshrined in legislation. The commissioner of this coast guard is mentioned in other legislation, specifically part XV of the Canada Shipping Act. While we have little objection to mentioning the commissioner of the coast guard in legislation, we are somewhat concerned that establishing a service in this matter will make it very difficult to proceed with changes that may be needed or desirable in the future. If I may cite an analogy, the Canada Ports Corporation, which was created by legislation, must see that legislation revoked in order for the corporation to be disbanded. The seaway is another example of where it may be necessary shortly to revoke legislation if it is decided that the operation of the seaway is to be commercialized.

In our view, it would be more appropriate to permit the coast guard to continue to exist as it does now, without having recourse to legislation to guarantee that existence. Not very long ago - a year and a half to two years - there was a question on the table of ``commercializing certain coast guard services''. The draft bill seems to indicate that this has been put aside.

It should be noted that while the need for a civilian government fleet may be evident, the coast guard is made up of other parts - vessel traffic services, marine pollution prevention and response, marine communication, navigational aid, ice-breaking, the marine component of search and rescue, and so on. When we enshrine this coast guard in legislation, do we enshrine all the present components of the coast guard, or only the fleet? Will the same incentive for change exist after the coast guard has been guaranteed that it will exist by enshrining it into legislation? We doubt it.

.0950

Subclause 41(2) is reproduced in our brief, also for easy reference. I will not recite it, but I will make reference to it.

This is the provision that causes a great deal of concern. To start, we recognize that the word ``shall'' used in subclause 41(2) relates to the powers and duties exercised by the commissioner of the coast guard on behalf of the minister. Other clauses of the bill, notably clauses 40 and 42, clearly establish discretionary powers for the minister by use of the word ``may''. Again in clause 44, the word ``may'' is used in relation to the powers of the minister.

Similarly, as in subclause 41(2), the use of the word ``shall'' in clause 46 imposes a duty on the dominion hydrographer to exercise the power and perform the duties and functions of the minister related to hydrography, as is the case with the commissioner of the coast guard. We agree with this manner of delegating power from a minister to an official. Here, however, the similarities cease within the proposed legislation.

At clause 47, by the use of the word ``may'', the dominion hydrographer is granted discretion in the manner in which he exercises the discretionary power of the minister that is applicable to him. This is not the case in subclause 41(2). The commissioner of the coast guard is not permitted discretion in the manner in which he exercises the powers of the minister.

We are supportive of more discretion being given to the commissioner of the coast guard if that discretion is permitted in order to ensure flexibility in the conduct of the business of the coast guard. We are concerned that the word ``shall'' in subclause 41(2) is applicable to the other paragraph of the subclause at the same time.

The Chairman: The ``shall'' and ``may'' get me confused at times. Are you saying you want it to be more explicit and that it should be ``shall'' or ``may'' in those clauses that you quote? You've indicated you agree that the powers ``shall'' be delegated down in subclause 41(2), so it should be ``shall''. You've mentioned others where it says ``may''. What are you telling us?

Capt Lanteigne: In a nutshell, we agree that the powers could be delegated to the commissioner of the coast guard, but these powers should be exercised by that commissioner by using the word ``may''.

The Chairman: Except in subclause 41(2). Do you agree that subclause 41(2) should be ``shall''?

Capt Lanteigne: No.

The Chairman: So you're saying it should be ``may'' where it says ``shall''?

Capt Lanteigne: It should be ``may''.

The Chairman: All of them?

Capt Lanteigne: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: Okay.

Capt Lanteigne: To continue, it is clearly implicit that these services will be provided by and as part of the coast guard, which has been enshrined by subclause 41(1). The ``shall'' is a duty placed on the commissioner and it extends to all of subclause 41(2), contrary to what has been drafted in relation to the dominion hydrographer. To our minds - and to answer your question again - there is not enough discretionary flexibility in the proposed bill to permit the commissioner of the coast guard to create a cost-effective, efficient government operation.

The words ``economical and efficient'' are contained in paragraph 41(2)(a), related to the movement of ships in Canadian waters. To our minds, the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waters is primarily the responsibility of shipowners. The commissioner of the coast guard has no control over the economical and efficient aspect of our operations. This is not to say he does not contribute to them, but the words ``safe, economical and efficient'' of paragraph 41(2)(a) should be related not only to the movement of ships in Canadian waters, but to the complete government operation of the coast guard.

It is suggested that the duties placed on the commissioner of the coast guard in subclause 41(2) should be qualified by the requirement to operate the coast guard service in a cost-effective, economical and efficient manner, granting the commissioner of the coast guard at the very least the discretion granted to the dominion hydrographer. There should be enough flexibility in the legislation to permit the service described in paragraphs 41(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), to be provided by other than the coast guard if the provision of these services is shown to be cost-effective, economical and efficient.

There should also be enough flexibility in the legislation to curtail services provided by the coast guard, such as marine communication or vessel traffic management, if it is determined in the future that they are no longer required or that they could be provided by other means.

.0955

We are of the opinion that the current commissioner of the coast guard, who we feel has always indicated he has an open mind in this regard, could be charged with the responsibility in the Oceans Act of ensuring that the services provided by the coast guard are appropriate.

The Chairman: You're getting into technical things here and I want to be clear on them.

What are you telling me? Are you trying to tell me you believe that section should indicate that the commissioner of the coast guard shall be responsible to deliver those services in the most cost-effective manner?

Are you trying to say that where it makes sense, if you privatized out, as long as the level...? Is that what you're telling me? You're telling me that rather than saying you have to do it with the coast guard, with the bureaucracy that's in place, it should say here's what your mandate is, you shall deliver these services in the most cost-efficient manner possible. If that includes contracting out, that should be done. Is that your point?

Capt Lanteigne: Yes. We're afraid that by using the word ``shall'' - in the first argument I was making - there won't be any discretion to commercialize or privatize or do away with the service, unless you amend the legislation at some time in the future.

By giving that discretion now, and by imposing an obligation to run cost-effective services, it would be far easier in the future to do away with components or parts of the service that, because of improving technology and because of a number of reasons, are no longer required. That's what I'm saying.

In a nutshell, the words ``economical and efficient'' should be removed from paragraph 41(2)(a), as we feel the responsibility for economical and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waters lies primarily with shipowners and not with the commissioner of the coast guard.

To terminate my part of this presentation, the Canadian Shipowners Association recommends to this committee that consideration be given to the following points in relation to clause 41.

The coast guard should not be enshrined in legislation. If it is, the commissioner of the coast guard should be given greater discretion in the exercise of the powers of the minister. That discretion should be limited by a requirement expressed in the legislation to provide or ensure the provision of services that are safe, economical and efficient. The services provided should expressly not be linked to the coast guard as they are now.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Campbell will now comment on clause 49.

Mr. Jim Campbell (General Manager, Chamber of Maritime Commerce): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First I'd like to note to the committee that in the 90-plus years of the Canadian Shipowners Association and the 35 years of the Chamber of Maritime Commerce, this is the first time in recent memory that we've actually made a joint submission to a federal standing committee. I think that's indicative of the import we put upon the two clauses we're discussing today.

The Chamber of Maritime Commerce has about 105 members. Currently we have ports, shippers and carriers from across the country, from grain in the prairies to coal in the Maritimes and steelmakers in Ontario.

I'd like to begin by saying that the arguments we're going to be making in this portion of our presentation will largely be based on one premise. We're trying to find some kind of financial accountability to be placed within clause 49, whether it's a new subclause 49(3) or 49(4) or within 49(2), that will allow for two things: first, financial accountability and the notion of economic and efficient delivery of services from the coast guard, as my colleague has suggested, and second, more user input. I will come back to that with an example already in current legislation in the Canada Shipping Act.

I will also begin this portion of the presentation by saying that the industry is, as my colleague suggested, prepared to pay in a fair and equitable manner for a portion of any of the required services received from the government, in this case through the coast guard, but only after there has been substantial and concrete cost reduction within the coast guard.

.1000

I will refer to the first witnesses during the brief this morning. There is confusion out there as to whether it's in the shipping industry or whether it's in the commercial fishing industry. We are concerned that in about four years from now we will have a bill of $60 million to deal with. The fishing community is worried about having a bill of $50 million to deal with in an already tightening fish market.

It is in this light that I state that we oppose clause 49 as it is written in the current legislation. We do submit the wording for clause 49, but I won't get into it for the sake of time.

If anyone recalls, this provision first appeared as clause 4 in Bill C-75, a bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act, which was debated in 1986 and never passed, due in large part, I might add, to the strenuous and eloquent efforts of the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who was in opposition at that time. We all remember his eight-hour filibuster.

By the way, the responsible Minister of Transport at the time also indicated that the clause as presented required further modification. We suggest it still does.

It is interesting, though, that after a decade has passed we are still discussing this same provision. The participants in the organizations have changed, but the premise remains much the same. As I said, the members or the pieces have been moved about the board, but we still get back to this one particular issue.

As mentioned, the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in opposition, there was a different commissioner of the coast guard, and the coast guard was part of the Department of Transport, not the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. As my colleague mentioned earlier, we now have the Canadian Coast Guard and the Marine Advisory Board.

But in spite of these changes the position taken by industry is now unfortunately the same as it was then.

A brief dated February 5, 1986 was presented by Dominion Marine Association and the Canadian Shipowners Association to the legislative committee examining Bill C-75. I've appended the last page of that brief, the recommendation, as appendix A in our presentation to this document.

Taking into consideration the passage of time and the difference in some of the terminology, we support in large part the substance of those recommendations made a decade ago. I suggest to the researcher and to the committee that they could go to that appendix and they will see how we could feel quite comfortable in seeing some of the wording changed in clause 49 with the recommendations we have in the appendix.

As I said, in large part the industry is prepared to pay for a portion of those services that are provided to it, but obviously for no others. At present clause 49 remains an open-ended provision. As Minister Tobin said in 1986, it's ``a gun to the heads of the marine community'', and I will add that the marine community is not only shipping; it includes fishing and recreational boating, which, by the way, is also going to be targeted for $30 million in the next four years.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the recent press release referred to earlier this morning has assured the commercial shipping industry that he will be listening very carefully to what is said prior to making any kind of final decision on the structure and approach to cost recovery that the coast guard is now endeavouring to implement.

He also stated that he agreed with the Standing Committee on Transport that increased cost recovery for coast guard services is necessary and inevitable. I would not propose that I could dictate a better example of what we're saying here with regard to the whole establishment of coast guard service fees than to refer to a particular section of the standing committee's report, released earlier this year.

They said:

I could not state it more clearly than your colleagues did earlier this year.

From this basis the Standing Committee on Transport went on to make its key recommendation:

.1005

Our approach to the whole notion and the whole issue of cost recovery is in essence the same as that of the Standing Committee on Transport earlier this year. Cost recovery must start with an appropriate cost reduction. This legislation before us, Bill C-98, should make sure that this in fact comes to be. In light of this, we have suggested that clause 49 is not appropriate as it is now presented and that it should be modified to ensure that the following considerations are taken into account.

First, clause 49 should be expressly subject to clause 41, that being, as my colleague suggested, a modified clause 41 that does not require the commissioner of the coast guard to avail himself only of the coast guard to ensure the provision of services. If the commissioner is able to provide services in a cost-effective and efficient manner, you can be sure that the industry will be extremely supportive of his efforts as long as the benefits are translated into less cost to the users of coast guard services received and not to offset other expenditures of the coast guard.

Furthermore, if we examine subclause 41(2), it can be noted that it is primarily those services under paragraphs (a) and (d) that commercial shipping benefits from. Costs to commercial ventures should not be imposed in any cost recovery in relation to services covered in paragraph (b), search and rescue - I'm sure in many cases that is an international obligation on the part of the Government of Canada - and not at all implicated in costs of services in paragraph (c), pleasure craft safety, and (e), support of other departments.

It is suggested that consultation with industry must be an integral part of the cost-reduction effort of the coast guard and that there be a duty placed on the commissioner by a provision in this act to establish an advisory committee, such as the Marine Advisory Board, in regard to the following: the services provided by the coast guard, the manner in which those services are provided, those services that are chargeable to the industry and those of course that are not, and the fees that are to be charged to the industry. These should all be considered.

Of course, this would not just entail the shipping industry; this would be for all users, as I had suggested, including the fishing community and the recreational boating community.

Next, Mr. Chair, in our view it would appear that clause 49 permits the charging of fees for services whether they are utilized by a particular user or not. An example of this would be if I owned a ship and I felt I could get a better deal on ice-breaking by investing in an ice-breaker or possibly buying services from a commercialized ice-breaking venture. Would that mean that I would be paying them and at the same time have to pay a coast guard fee for ice-breaking services that I would never use? It could be well be blended in, as had been mentioned earlier when you had the ADM of the coast guard here.

The Chairman: I'm going to have to jump in here. We have a vote in ten minutes. How much longer are you going to need? If you want to call it right now, we'll go over, get our vote done, and come back; you can finish, and then we can ask you questions.

Mr. Campbell: We were looking forward to a lot of questions, so that would be fine.

The Chairman: Okay, why don't we do that?

If everybody can hang around, we have a vote in ten minutes on Bill C-61. We'll take a run over and do our duty for God and country and we'll be back.

.1008

PAUSE

.1049

The Chairman: Where did we leave off?

Mr. Campbell: Mr. Chair, I'll just take a few more minutes and then we can get to questions.

As I mentioned, it's our view that clause 49 permits the charging of a fee for services, whether they're utilized by a particular user or not, and I used the example of ice-breaking. Another example is vessel traffic management. It may become obsolete in the very near future, and the fee structure as proposed in this particular bill would continue to support the service long after it's become obsolete - a service that at present could be considered a monopoly. This would mean the fee structure as proposed would be contrary to the very principle of linking cost recovery to the notion of cost reduction.

The industry would suggest that slight changes within Bill C-98 would help go a long way to avoiding that happening to the industry.

A final example of what we were suggesting with regard to coast guard costs being assigned to services that could be considered a monopoly is a letter we received, through the Marine Advisory Board, from the president of the Coal Association of Canada. He suggests that although there is in Canada a series of what you could consider monopolies, such as a single rail service to a coal mine, telecommunications in large part and hydro services that are supplied in provinces, they also have, in conjunction with those monopolies, regulatory environments to make sure their costs are controlled.

.1050

His letter reads, though:

We and the Canadian Shipowners Association wholeheartedly support the Coal Association's view.

It is for all these reasons that it is recommended to this committee that consideration be given to the following in relation to redrafting clause 49.

There should be no cost recovery before acceptable cost reduction and elimination of those services that are due to technological change or that, for other reasons, are no longer required or have become obsolete.

A fee provision should be expressly linked to the services in a modified clause 41, as my colleague suggested, changing ``shall'' to ``may'' and giving discretion to the commissioner in the development and implementation of services.

There should be recourse to the Governor in Council or some other independent body to permit appeals by interested parties against the imposition of particular fees and changes or increases to those fees.

Finally, an advisory committee, possibly similar to the Marine Advisory Board, should be enshrined in legislation to ensure consultation with all those in industry, shipping, fishing and recreational boating, much like the advisory council that is now found in a new section of the Canada Shipping Act, 660.1. I have a copy here, which I will give to the clerk for distribution, if you're interested.

In closing, I'd like to thank you for the time here. I know you have a very tight schedule. We would like to see more discretion, as far as the commissioner is concerned, in the development and implementation of services. In clause 49 we would like to see some accountability as far as fiscal responsibility for those services and the setting of fees is concerned. We would also like to see an opportunity for all users to be part and parcel of the development of those fees and of the regulation and development of the services that are going to be attached to those fees.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Jim, could you flesh it out a little better? You said that under clause 49, before these fees get passed on, you want to ensure they are the lowest fees possible for the service provided, which your industry would have to pay for. You mentioned consultation with industry is essential. You also mentioned some type of monitoring or advisory body. Could you get into that and tell us about it?

Mr. Campbell: With regard to paying only after the lowest cost has been found, we're not being unreasonable. We're not going to suggest we have to get squeezed to the last penny before our penny is paid, but we would like to see something a lot more aggressive with regard to the cost-cutting measures that are now under way with the coast guard. If they're looking at, for instance, a $100 million cost reduction in four years, we would ask why they can't do it this year or next year.

My colleague will be able to expand on the more technical aspects of that, but if they want a challenge, we can sit down with them and find millions to cut before a fee is assigned to what we would consider a bloated and in many cases an obsolete service.

The Chairman: You're basically saying what we heard from west coast fishermen when they talked about fee increases or access fees, which are not dealt with in this bill. They indicated they were quite prepared to pay them as long as they have some say in how those dollars and programs are administered. Is it the same type of thing?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, exactly. With an amendment to clause 49, we could put in something quite similar to section 660.1 of the Canada Shipping Act, which lists what advisory councils are, who the members are, what the term is, who the president is, etc. It's already in a particular piece of legislation and it is working. We would suggest that it would only strengthen the Oceans Act with regard to that particular clause if this were considered also for implementation into that clause.

The Chairman: Could you help me a bit more before I go over to our members? You're talking in very general terms about the direction. Can you tell me how you see this working? Does it mean one or two years before those lowest possible fees are identified through a process? What happens to the fees in the intervening period, in the two-year period? Does it mean that if Acme Icebreaking comes in with a new vessel and says they can clear the St. Lawrence or your path up the St. Lawrence to Quebec City or to Montreal for x number of dollars, automatically the coast guard, if they were still providing service, would have to match that?

.1055

I'm trying to figure out the mechanism that would be used there, or do you do it periodically? Do you do it annually?

Mr. Campbell: We would suggest that if it was an ongoing advisory committee, with regard to trying to establish services and therefore fees for coast guard services, it would be ongoing and they could just pull the number out of there. They could meet quarterly; they could meet semi-annually.

There are opportunities to be able to sit down with the coast guard, which supplies this service, to decide first if the service is required; second, where it is required, and; third, what would be a fair price to be able to pay for that service to make sure they meet their budget goals and of course that we can continue to be economically viable.

As far as the particulars are concerned, we could submit to the committee what we would suggest would be a mandate and a structure of any kind of advisory board that could sit.

The Chairman: The cost of the administration of enforcement of those regulations would be passed on, as well, on top of that.

Mr. Campbell: Right now that's being suggested, as it stands.

Again, what we're trying to do is not only find efficiency with the service, but also, when and if these marine service fees come down, an administrative efficiency, because that's going to be dumped on us. Who knows, it could be $1 million, $2 million.... We just don't know.

The Chairman: It's your view that currently the coast guard is operating in a not very cost-efficient manner.

Mr. Campbell: We would suggest that strongly.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mrs. Ablonczy: First of all, I'd like to say that this is a good brief. It's very clear and it makes its points clearly. I say that as someone who is new to the committee, so when I can pick up on your issues really quickly, that's helpful.

I do have a number of questions.

On page 3 of your brief you say it's very difficult to proceed with changes that may be desirable in the future under the proposals in this draft of the act. What you're really saying is if we have codification of what the coast guard is supposed to do, you're afraid it will lead to fossilization, that once it's in the legislation that's it and the flexibility is lost.

My question is, if we put all the discretion on the commissioner of the coast guard, what if he turns out not to be very discreet? What if the exercise of his discretion doesn't run the service very well for you folks, but there's no legislation that can demand that he has at least a certain structure of services or level of services in mind? How do you balance out your desire for flexibility on the part of the commissioner with the industry's need for at least some framework or mandate for the commissioner to have to operate under?

Capt Lanteigne: A good question.

The framework and the mandate under which the coast guard currently operates is very well set; it's all established. As Jim mentioned, there is a joint feeling here that the costs associated with that framework are far too high and the focus in the last few months in the discussions with the coast guard has been, and only been, on cost recovery, whereas our industry focus - both combined member industries' focus - would wish that focus to move to cost reduction, and they are well-prepared to talk about cost reduction.

Our fear here, in relation to your question, is it is our opinion that in the future, probably in the very near future, there will be some degree of commercial operation available on the market to provide services that are currently provided only by the coast guard.

If I may use an example to make the point, international private corporations have formed a consortium that will shortly launch - we're looking at next year - low-level satellites, 28 of them, to provide a worldwide network of communication for all users, be it aircraft, marine, yourself personally, anybody. If that service is efficient, safe and cheap, we would certainly be more interested in using it than in using a service provided by the coast guard in marine communications, which they do now.

.1100

For example, the commissioner is not given the flexibility of having a marine communication service, which the coast guard does operate now - admittedly it's at high cost, but it does operate it - or the alternative of saying ``Now that the service is being provided by commercial entities around the world and throughout Canada, there is no further need for us to operate this service, so we will just withdraw from it''. That's only an example. There are probably many others I could use.

Mrs. Ablonczy: So what you're saying is you'd rather take your chances with a commissioner who has discretion than with legislation that has certainty but no flexibility?

Capt Lanteigne: Yes, Madame.

Mrs. Ablonczy: The question I have about that, and I think it's probably occurred to most members of the committee, is this. If you have the ability in the industry to go to privately provided services, what does that do for the coast guard? I'd better find my question to make sure I give you what I wrote down.

What if the coast guard has a provision of services or a set service provision capability established and then the industry says ``I don't think I like your service because I can get it cheaper or better over here''? If the public purse is paying for the provision of service by the coast guard, isn't that going to cause some real difficulty for the coast guard, which is set up to provide a service? The industry then says ``Thanks, but no thanks; we'd rather get it from a private provider''. Where does that leave the coast guard? Isn't there a need for at least some support for the coast guard so that it can have an integral provision of services?

Capt Lanteigne: There is some support, but at this point it is hard for me to answer your question. The degree to which any particular service of the coast guard will be needed or not needed or could be more economically or efficiently provided by an alternative source will really depend on what option the coast guard or the minister decides upon for cost recovery. There are a number of options on the table right now - three of them, as a matter of fact - on which impact studies are currently being done.

For instance, one of the options that's on the table is a specific fee for a specific service in a specific region. Take ice-breaking on the Great Lakes as an example. It would be a specific fee for ice-breaking in the Great Lakes. We hardly use any ice-breaking in the Great Lakes because our ships sleep during the winter, but a shipper from Algoma Steel out of Hamilton needs ice-breaking in the spring to break open the port of Hamilton. If the cost for that specific service within that region is too high, Algoma Steel may decide to wait for the weather to do its thing and a few weeks from now there won't be any ice left.

So at this point I'm totally unable to answer your question. It will depend on what specific option is retained to recover the coast guard cost, how it's going to be distributed between the shipper, fisheries, and the recreational borders, and, within a specific industry, whether it is imposed upon the value of the cargo or the service within the region, and so forth.

Mrs. Ablonczy: But in a sense aren't you asking the coast guard to compete like any other private enterprise? You're saying okay, tell us what service you can provide and how much it will cost; if we can get it cheaper or better somewhere else, we're going to go there.

If you're going to do that, what's the point of the coast guard? That's my question.

.1105

Capt Lanteigne: No, we don't wish the coast guard to compete as a private enterprise, because a significant number of services provided by the coast guard are provided as a public function to all Canadians and should be financed by appropriation. Search and rescue is the best example I could use. Ice management on the St. Lawrence River to prevent flooding is another.

It's unrealistic to expect that the coast guard could be operated as a full commercial entity, but there are probably some services of the coast guard that could be commercialized and operated as commercial entities. I could name you a few, but for the purpose of this discussion, some just could not.

Mrs. Ablonczy: But what you're saying is you don't want to have to subsidize those services.

Capt Lanteigne: No.

Mrs. Ablonczy: Okay.

On page 9 of your brief, at the bottom, you state that before the cost-recovery fees are set, there will be consultation with the industry. But I guess if the bill goes through, the consultation may or may not be persuasive in setting the fees. In other words, one of your concerns when you talk about this permanent advisory board is that once the legislation's through, you can say all you want, but the power to set the fees rests with the minister, and whatever you say may or may not be taken into account. Is that your concern?

Mr. Campbell: That's correct.

Mrs. Ablonczy: Okay; I just wanted to make that clear.

You have a number of recommendations. There are about six at the top of page 10: it has to be fair and equitable, it has to include all the users and all of those things. What you're really fearing is that there will be a huge and inefficient bureaucracy set up that you'll have to pay for, but there will be no incentive on the part of this outfit to be efficient and cost-effective.

Capt Lanteigne: Exactly.

Mr. Campbell: Our concern is with the continuation of a huge and inefficient bureaucracy. There's much going on right now with DFO absorbing the coast guard. We were expecting some efficiencies of service to come from that. We have yet to see any major change. Largely all we've done is taken one bureaucracy and another bureaucracy and put them together. We now have a larger one.

Our concern is on the question of looking deeper and cutting deeper. When we come in front of the committee, we don't do it lightly. We have members who have made thousands of job cuts and have shut down plants. So when they hear the coast guard come back to us with numbers like an 8% to 10% cut over the next three to four years, they're going to be a little cynical about it. They're saying ``No, you haven't done it''.

We're here to challenge the coast guard. If they want a David Letterman's top ten list of how they can save $200 million over the next two years, we will give them one, and we will work with them in implementing it. We're not here to criticize; we're trying to say we would like to have something within Bill C-98 that will allow future opportunities, in a structured format, to have input into the operations and the fees set.

Mrs. Ablonczy: So you're saying the legislation should not mandate that the coast guard itself provide a service, but at the very least they could contract it out if it could be done more cost-effectively by another entity.

Mr. Campbell: That would be fine. As I said, give them the ``may''; we shouldn't be saddled with the ``shall''.

Mrs. Ablonczy: Thank you.

Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): First of all, let me welcome you to our committee and congratulate you on an excellent brief.

As you know, the merger has been very recent, and as much as you and I would like to see things happen as quickly as possible, when you have large mergers like that, it can't happen overnight. I can assure you there are ongoing discussions, task forces and groups put together to see which services can be merged together in technical and other areas and how we can develop a greater synergy when we put the two groups together.

There are ongoing changes that you'll see coming up. It's not just a matter of putting these together into a larger entity, but of melding them together. We look at what services can be put together, and a lot of the duplications can be removed.

.1110

I can assure you that this is a process that's going on presently and that you'll see those changes come about. As much as you and I would like to see it a lot quicker, the reality is that when you're undertaking such a large project, changes don't happen very quickly.

I can assure you they're happening, and they will happen, and there are ongoing changes being made to make you feel at ease. It is not going to be just two groups coming together in the same large bureaucracy.

Mr. Campbell: We're looking forward to working with the department, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: My next question is in terms of subclause 41(2). You have a concern that instead of having ``shall'', you'd like to see ``may'', but you know the phrase refers really to the commissioner exercising the powers of the minister.

I know your concern in regard to the services outlined that maybe you'd like to see the private sector provide them, but there's nothing in this legislation that prevents the commissioner, if he felt it was more efficient and cost-effective, from saying that the service can be better provided by the private sector and therefore they can always go to the private sector to provide those services.

Mr. Campbell: Point taken. We have been talking about potential for commercialization options, but we have to also go back to the potential for obsolete services, services that are just not required in particular regions.

If the commissioner is deemed responsible for providing the services, period, we would suggest that he could largely be legally responsible to continue to provide services, whether or not they're useful to the shipping community or they're useful to the fishing community.

We would suggest that if we do have something as simple as a ``may'', you can give him the discretion to say yes or no, he will provide either service, period, or any type of level of service. We're just looking, as I said, to give him a little more flexibility. We think that kind of wording could do it. If there is other wording that would lead to the same goal, then we would be open to that, obviously.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I just want to make the point that because it says ``shall'', it doesn't mean he cannot privatize some of those services where he feels it's more efficient and more cost-effective.

Mr. Campbell: Point taken.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I know you're concerned that you may have the burden of the cost of inefficiencies, but you are protected under the legislation in that you can only be charged with what the costs are. It's whatever the cost of providing that service is. You're protected there in that you can't be charged more than what the costs are under the legislation. I want to make sure you're aware of that.

Mr. Campbell: We're well aware of that, and we appreciate that component being within the legislation. We would suggest that the cost is too high, as opposed to them trying to get cost plus margin.

With our industry and with my colleague's industry, literally multimillion-dollar deals are made on 25¢ a tonne, 30¢ a tonne on transportation costs. That kind of increase in transportation cost going back to a shipper or even being absorbed by a carrier could largely be the basis of decisions on investment in Canada, we would suggest.

It could decide if someone is going to expand a plant or possibly not move grain out of Thunder Bay or not bring containers into Halifax. Instead, they'll go down to Baltimore where they don't have to take those extra costs on.

It's not a question of the notion of nickel and diming. We're quite willing to pay for our nickel. It's when it gets to the diming...then we're having great difficulty, and we think this -

Mr. Dhaliwal: You're saying the costs are too high, but the charges have not been announced nor the method by which they'll be administered. You're saying the charges are too high, but you don't know yet what the charges are going to be.

Mr. Campbell: What we do know is that we've been told $20 million in 1996-97, $40 million the next year, $40 million the next year, and $60 million after four years.

We've asked, what if we helped you drop $200 million to the coast guard? They said it won't make much difference. That's $60 million. All you're going to do is stop it from going above the $60 million.

We would humbly suggest that if anyone thinks it's going to be $60 million in four years then they haven't been watching the coast guard in the last few years. Who knows what it could go to after $60 million.

We've made openings, we've made proactive addresses to the coast guard with regard to cost-cutting and what it's going to do to that $60 million, and it's been passed on.

If they're suggesting that's going to be $60 million for us in four years, I'm sure it's still going to be a solid $50 million expected to be drawn from the fishing industry in four years also.

.1115

Mr. Dhaliwal: My point is, because you talked about tonnage, you don't know what the exact cost per tonnage will be at this time.

Mr. Campbell: Ultimately it will be $60 million, and it will be absorbed in the transportation costs. It's usually the shipper who ultimately has to pay for this. The shipper will end up making the decision where they go. Whether or not they come into Halifax or they come into Vancouver instead of going to Seattle...as I said, we're talking about $60 million.

Mr. Dhaliwal: How would you favour that fee? You're obviously willing to pay a fee as long as it's fair and equitable. Should it be based on the tonnage? Should it be based on the Pacific user? If they use a service, should they be charged a fee at that time? What is the best way for the industry to deal with this fee? Should it be on a general tonnage basis?

Some people have come to me personally and said they don't want a general charge on the tonnage; they'd rather have a charge specifically for those people who use it. They would be charged directly and there would be more accountability. People will want to use a service they don't really need. If it doesn't directly affect them and the fee is just built into the tonnage, there may be a higher use of the service than you really need, as opposed to going directly. If you use a service, you pay for it.

Mr. Campbell: With 105 members in the chamber and 80% of them shippers, they will have their own ideas of what's going to benefit their companies and their employees most as far as shipping is concerned. At this point we're not going to say whether we want an ad valorem tax or whether we want it to be an omnibus fee. But we want to make sure it's either regionally based or a fee for service.

I was surprised to hear from the coast guard this morning that it is now concerned about making sure this is all transparent and we actually do charge for services so the coast guard can look at dropping those costs and start targeting particular services.

At this point, because there will be something different for everyone involved, we're just looking at keeping it service-specific and regional-specific. Those shipping out of Vancouver shouldn't have to be saddled with ice-breaking in another part of the country. I think that's where you're probably coming from.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I was surprised when I read that the safe, economic and efficient movement of ships in Canadian waters is primarily the responsibility of shipowners. I recently visited the Vancouver port, and officials there are always very concerned that ships within their port are moved in an efficient and economical way.

I'm surprised that you're saying it really shouldn't be the responsibility of the coast guard, when in fact I think it is an important responsibility. You don't want the shipowners to have problems when ships are not moving within a port area in an efficient and economical way. Maybe I don't understand this clearly, but I thought it was an important responsibility for the government, coast guard and the ports to ensure the efficient and economical movement of ships for the shipowners so they can be competitive with other ports and countries.

Capt Lanteigne: You're partially correct, but this statement is made by a shipowner who represents Canadian shipowners. To get our ship carrying cargo from A to B economically, efficiently and safely, in our view, is the responsibility of the ship and the shipowner, first and foremost.

We acknowledge that the coast guard has a contribution to this safe movement at times. Insofar as the port of Vancouver is concerned, to get ships in and out quickly is a matter of the port operating efficiently and maximizing the throughput of cargo. It has its own reason for doing this, and to some degree the coast guard contributes to that efficiency for the port of Vancouver by providing service to the ports.

.1120

First and foremost, the responsibility of getting our ship from A to B in Canadian waters with Canadian crude belongs to the ship and the shipowner. It's not only a moral responsibility, it's a legal responsibility.

Mr. Dhaliwal: But if as a government or the coast guard we said we didn't care if you got in and out economically and efficiently, we're just going to worry about one factor, I think we wouldn't be doing our job. Obviously it's a shared responsibility.

Capt. Lanteigne: We acknowledge that the coast guard makes a contribution to this. My colleagues and I have been saying the service is far too much and far too expensive. Significant cost reduction could be achieved in the coast guard services provided to the commercial industry, including fishermen, shipowners or pleasure craft, without reducing the levels of safety or environmental protection in the system by any amount.

Before cost recovery is discussed or laid on the table, we are more than open to discussing areas where cost reduction could be achieved in the coast guard, even if it means investing in our ships to improve their performance. We are ready to go that route in a major way.

The Chairman: I want to thank you. I think the presentation you've given has been informative for us. It raises some points. As legislators we have to weigh the dollar-driven interest of the private sector, the industry you represent, with the requirement by government to first look after the marine resource. That's why there are a lot of regulations and legislation. They cost money to enforce, but somewhere there's a happy marriage here. I'm not sure where it is.

I think you've explored that for us. I don't think we want the wild, wild west out there on our high seas, but perhaps our current situation needs to be reviewed. We can try to reduce the cost as much as possible, engage the private sector wherever it's possible to do so, but ensure that the regulations are in the best interest of Canada.

I'm not saying shipowners don't look after the safety aspect, but I do know things are usually driven by the bottom line of the shareholders, and that's profit. Sometimes there has to be another player that is not necessarily driven by profit to ensure that things like public safety are looked after.

I think you've helped us go down that road. We appreciate your brief. You've made some very good suggestions as to where amendments could be recommended. Thanks very much for coming today.

Mr. Campbell: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Our next witnesses are from the World Wildlife Fund. We have Cheri Recchia and Arlin Hackman.

Ms Cheri A. Recchia (Manager, Marine Protected Areas, Endangered Spaces Campaign, World Wildlife Fund): Unfortunately, Mr. Hackman couldn't be here today.

The Chairman: Cheri was here two weeks ago and kindly agreed to have her presentation rescheduled because we knew last week would be a busy week. Because of the importance of the issue at hand, we wanted to make sure as many members as possible could be here for it.

That being said and done, thank you for waiting, and the mike is yours.

Ms Recchia: I'd like to thank the standing committee and the members for allowing us to be here today. We believe this is tremendously important for marine conservation and sustainable development in Canada now and in the immediate and foreseeable future. We are happy to be able to participate in this process and we look forward to participating in the weeks or months ahead.

Before I get into our recommendations for how the act could be strengthened, I'd like to introduce our organization for those of you who may not be familiar with the World Wildlife Fund or WWF.

We are, as many of you may know, a global organization, launched over 30 years ago with the establishment of our international headquarters in Gland, Switzerland. At present, WWF International is active in over 100 countries and has more than 5.2 million supporters worldwide.

Our international activities in the marine environment include everything from local community coastal development projects to marine-protected area proposals. We run sites in Tanzania, South Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Greece, the United Kingdom, and basically all over the world.

.1125

We're also about to launch a global sustainable fisheries campaign in recognition of the sorry state of the world's fisheries. This will target some of the major issues that face fisheries throughout the world, such as the bycatch issue and the use of destructive fishing practices, including the use of cyanide or bleach fishing in some regions and dynamite fishing and other destructive practices.

This sustainable fisheries campaign will also try to take a first crack at dealing with the question of over-capitalization of fishing fleets. This is a campaign that we're excited about. It's a tough one and we're trying to figure out how to launch it in a way that will ensure that it's a fair and informed approach to global problems.

WWF prides itself on being an organization that uses the best information possible. It bases its advocacy and its conservation work on the best available science and it tries, where possible, to avoid relying on strictly emotional calls for action.

In light of some of our recent international marine conservation activities, we recently produced this small booklet. This is a very broad audience booklet that's intended to highlight some of the conservation issues facing the seas around the world and some of the solutions, including marine protected areas.

Turning now to our organization, WWF Canada was launched in 1967. Our headquarters are now in Toronto. We have about 50,000 active supporters and about 120,000 supporters, if you count everyone who drops us a cheque every now and then. We have four main conservation programs at WWF Canada and we are probably best known for our work on endangered species.

We do a lot of work on marine species, especially whales: beluga whales in the St. Lawrence, eastern Arctic bowhead whales, and other species. We also have a wildlife toxicology program, which focuses on a variety of toxic and contaminant issues, including such things as the use of pesticides and fertilizers and including some marine pollution issues, such as sewage treatment plants and other related issues.

We also have an international program. This focuses on trying to provide some protection to species, such as songbirds, that are migratory between Canada and sunnier southern climes. This is a program that's primarily active in Latin America and the Caribbean. We're also trying to get a marine conservation initiative up and running in Cuba, to protect some of the coral reefs and associated species there.

Our biggest program at WWF Canada, however, is the endangered spaces campaign. Many of you will be familiar with this campaign. It was launched ten years ago as a ten-year campaign stretching from 1990 to the year 2000 to establish an ecologically representative network of protected areas across Canada's lands and waters.

This is a goal to which all thirteen of Canada's senior governments have committed. This makes it a matter of public policy, and we work together in trying to establish this network of protected areas in a timely and efficient fashion, again trying to base protected area decisions, including boundaries, management regimes, and so forth, on science, to the extent possible. How these areas should be set up to best achieve their conservation function is one of the questions we try to provide some helpful input into.

The members should all have recently received this book. You may not have had time to read every page of it yet. This is the second book we've produced through the endangered spaces campaign. We launched the campaign with the first book, Endangered Spaces, and I guess this is part two, the sequel. This is intended to be an owner's manual, a status assessment of where we are now, halfway through the campaign, and where we need to go in order to get to our goal by the year 2000.

The campaign has always included land and waters. However, we've all been a little slow off the mark in working on the waters part of it. We're trying to correct that now.

I was hired, just over a year and a half ago, to focus on marine protected areas in particular. I have a background in biological oceanography. I'm a little bit new to the conservation game, but I was brought on board to try to focus most of my time and attention on how to establish marine protected areas across this country, balancing them with other marine conservation initiatives and other marine sustainable development initiatives, and basically how to do the job that we think needs to be done.

That is talked about a little bit in our latest progress report. We produce these every year, measuring progress towards achieving the spaces goal, and the members also receive this on a regular basis. This is the grade that we're often reviled for.

Turning now to the matter at hand, the Canada Oceans Act, we do believe this is important. We support this act. The first two annexes of our briefing note include a letter of support from Monte Hummel, president of WWF Canada, as well as a letter of support from the director general of WWF International, Dr. Claude Martin.

We do, however, believe this act can be strengthened in a couple of relatively simple but powerful ways. I'd like to focus primarily on two today. Before I get into the details of how and why, I'd like to ask your indulgence for a moment to consider what we believe is really at the heart of the issue here, why we're all here today, and what we're trying to achieve, and that's the oceans themselves.

.1130

I ask you to think for a moment not of sitting in a room on the Hill in Ottawa, but to stretch your minds to your home ridings or to your favourite coastline, and think a bit about the oceans. Think about what's out there. They are vast. We have the longest coastline in the world. We front on three different oceans. Canada's oceans are vast and they are teeming with life.

There are small plants that float on the surface waters and suck up carbon dioxide, which we're all worried about producing so much of at ground level, and produce oxygen, which sustains all life. They feed tiny little shrimp-like beasties that migrate up and down, and they in turn feed fish, which feed whales, and so forth and so on.

You're all very familiar with this, but I think it's helpful to remind ourselves of what's out there. The diversity is amazing, and there are exceptions to every rule. There are fish that eat whales: sharks. There are whales that eat whales: killer whales eat whales. The largest creature that has ever lived on earth, the blue whale, which is over 90 feet long, eats tiny little shrimp-like creatures. It's truly incredible.

If you think about the mid-water, there are fish that are basically huge pointy teeth with fins - these things would make any Hallowe'en party's night - but they're only about an inch long. It's incredible. Think about the ocean floor, the deep ocean environment. We thought for many decades, indeed for centuries, that all life on earth was powered ultimately by the sun. The sun is what sustains plants, and animals eat plants, and humans eat animals and plants. We thought that was the whole story, but now we know it's not the whole story.

On the deep ocean floor in some places there are hydro-thermal vent communities. These are entire communities powered only by the heat of the earth. These are organisms that live in incredibly toxic environments for almost everything else. These are sulphurous, cyanide-rich environments that are boiling hot, and there are whole communities down there, with shrimp and weird-looking crabs.

It's a phenomenal world out there. We need to focus on that for a moment and think about what it means to Canada. What has it meant?

A large part of Canada has been founded on our oceans, based on what's in there and how we've used it. For 500 years the cod fishery has been going strong. There are Pacific salmon and Atlantic salmon. The oceans have been a source of many things. We use more and more species every year. Species we used to pitch over the sides of the boats now seem to be something we can use.

But as we all know, there's trouble out there, not just in Canada's waters, but around the world. All over the world the oceans look as though they're beginning to finally show signs of decline. The FAO, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, estimates that 70% or more of the conventional fish stocks of the world are at or above their sustainable level of exploitation. We're maxed out in many places when it comes to fisheries.

There's pollution in virtually every ocean, including the Arctic and the Antarctic, which we thought were probably, since no one is really living there, pristine. The oceans are in trouble. Canada's oceans are in trouble. What we need to do is figure out what we have to set in motion, what we have to lay in place, to rectify this situation.

Think of the oceans, how they are now and how you'd like to see them in 10 years, in 25 years or in 50 years, for your children and your children's children. That's the vision we need to tap into here. We would argue that is the vision that's missing from the Canada Oceans Act. The vision that talks about the protection of the marine environment is in the NABST report; the vision that talks about conserving the marine environment is in the minister's vision statements. It's just not quite there in the Oceans Act.

In the Oceans Act now we have all the tools. We have legal affirmation of our sovereign rights over our exclusive economic zone. We have provision for a consultative process to establish a national oceans management strategy and then follow it up by regional implementation plants. We have consolidation and clarification of the powers of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The oceans management strategy is premised on two key principles: integrated management and sustainable development.

But these are all just tools. We argue that what is needed is an overarching statement of purpose. Why, ultimately, do we need to do these things? What, ultimately, must we achieve in the oceans? WWF would argue that what we need to achieve first and foremost is conservation of marine ecosystems and marine biodiversity, because without that, all else will be virtually pointless.

There is very little point to asserting our sovereign rights over the exclusive economic zones and chasing the Spaniards off the Grand Banks if there's nothing there for us to use ourselves. This is why we are supporting the insertion of a statement of purposes clause near the beginning of the act. This might be something that is very general - protection of healthy oceans - or it might be something that is quite specific.

.1135

WWF supports the wording that has been put forward in the CARC-CNF brief, which the committee received last week. That is one suggestion.

However, I think it might be instructive to wonder why words like ``biodiversity'' and ``ecosystem management'' don't appear in the act. ``Conservation'' is in there a couple of times; it is in there in the clause on marine protected areas to which I will turn in a moment. Conserving is mentioned when we offer the justification for why it is important to assert our sovereign rights in the EEZ. But, by and large, I would argue, especially if you start from the minister's vision document, it is noticeably absent from the act in its current form.

I will turn now to my job, marine protected areas. This is something that I work at mainly in Canada for WWF Canada, but also somewhat internationally. We are delighted that there is a series of provisions in the act for establishing marine protected areas, and we share the concerns of many other conservation groups, of Parks Canada, and of other agencies, about the apparent limitation of the clauses to conservation and protection of fishery resources and their habitats.

This could be interpreted very narrowly to mean commercial fish stocks or commercial fish species. While that is certainly important, while that is critical, we would argue that it is insufficient.

Federally, we have three agencies that presently are empowered to create marine protected areas of various kinds. We have the Canadian Wildlife Service, which can establish protected marine areas under the Canada Wildlife Act. These areas are principally targeted at protecting sea birds - not exclusively, but principally.

We have the National Parks Act, which can be used to establish national marine conservation areas, and these too serve a particular function. National marine conservation areas - it is a very specific, critical but defined mandate.

That leaves out everything else, not just fish but ecosystems. It leaves different kinds of habitats, inshore and offshore. It leaves a whole variety of purposes we may not even envision yet.

Why would we now, in an enabling piece of legislation, narrowly focus this provision on fishery resources, which could be interpreted to mean only fisheries that were commercially exploited. It may not even touch future resources.

I can give you a specific example of where we think the Oceans Act, if amended in this way, would be extremely useful. We are working to protect an area called the gully. It is off Sable Island, on the Scotian shelf. This is an area of tremendous productivity. It is an underwater canyon. This is something that is on the scale of the Grand Canyon, although about half as deep. It is the largest submarine canyon on the Scotian shelf, one of the largest on the entire eastern continental margin of North America.

This area, because it is a canyon, causes a great mixing of waters - the very nutrient-rich waters, which are at the bottom, on the deep, off the edge of the continental shelf. This is where everything rains down from the top, all these nutrients filter down from the top, settle in the low, bottom waters, where there is very little light and it is very cold, so not much goes on there.

Areas where these low-lying, nutrient-rich waters are forced up into the surface, up into the light, where the plants and animals and everything else live, are areas that are very productive. This is where we have primary productivity cranks, where we have very productive fisheries, and where we have sea bird activity and whale activity. In fact, the gully appears to be the year-round home for a resident population of 280 northern bottlenose whales. They are odd little creatures, very curious, very into checking out boats and seeing what is going on, and they seem to live there all year round. They appear to be a genetically distinct population. They are near a major trans-Atlantic shipping channel. They are near now a potentially developing oil and gas production, the Sable offshore energy project, which is about to be developed off Sable Island, if things go according to plan.

This area is also, at the moment, rich in things like blue fin tuna and is thought to be an important spawning ground for a few groundfish species, including cod and pollock. But it is not an area that as a fishery manager you would say, yes, we have to protect this area. It is an area that you might point to and say, from a conservation perspective, this area is really important, there is a lot going on here, and we need to protect it.

A number of federal agencies have talked about protecting this area. CWS has talked about establishing it as a national wildlife area, but has concluded that because the primary interest in the area appears to be marine mammals, it is probably more important for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. DFO could designate it issuing variation orders under the Fisheries Act. This, as many of you realize, would be somewhat inefficient. It would have to be renewed annually. It is using an act for a purpose it wasn't really intended.

.1140

Parks Canada has interest in the area. They say it's a national area of Canadian significance and a tremendously important area. But it doesn't fit well with their mandate because of the tourism and recreation focus, and it's also unclear whether the National Parks Act can be used to designate areas that are outside the territorial sea, which this one is.

We're meeting with Mobil and others within the petroleum industry who are very interested in seeing something like this go ahead, because frankly they see a good angle to having their project proceed along an area that's been designated for conservation.

This area would be perfect for designation under the Oceans Act, but perhaps not the way the Oceans Act is written now, because it's not clear it would enable designation of this area, since it's not obvious there are good implications for fishery resources.

We suggest amending the marine protected area provisions to broaden them and allow their application not only to fishery resources but to other things as well. At a minimum we'd suggest ``living resources'', but we think it would be better still to reword the provisions entirely, particularly clause 35, and again, we support the CARC-CNF wording for this clause.

The majority of our brief, in this case, is annexes. I will leave those to the committee to digest as they see fit at some present or future date.

We are delighted that the CARC-CNF brief has been put together. We work quite closely with CARC and CNF, and it's certainly saved me a lot of typing. We think it's a solid piece and we endorse it.

We thank the committee for its time.

The Chairman: I have to take my leave in a minute or two; the vice-chair is going to take over.

Your presentation was riveting, and I hope you have a chance to stay around as we undertake some of the other hearings. I grew up with the ocean right down there, and you're quite correct; many times we saw the ocean and we never saw anything beyond the surface of it. We saw the boats going back and forth to Port aux Basques from Sydney Harbour and to St. John's, but never really saw anything other than a few skeleton fish, as we used to call them, and a few cod down in Port au Choix Harbour. The complexity and biodiversity of that ocean environment is something that even today, as chair of the fish committee, I should be reminded of.

One of the things that concerns me a little bit is you've clearly identified the need to have a piece of legislation that is able to go into unique marine environments and protect them. I do agree with you that the current wording of the act will not allow that to be done. It's much more narrow. It seems to be sort of on an emergency basis for fisheries. The example you gave of Sable Island is indeed one where you would probably want to explore the establishment of a marine protected area.

I'm going to leave you with this, because Mrs. Payne is going to take over. I want to ask you, however, if you believe that when you talk about protecting the integrity of the biodiversity of our marine environment, some other piece of legislation, such as the sections of CEPA that deal with ocean dumping and things like that, or even other jurisdictions that deal with land-based sources of ocean pollution, could all feed into that.

Where I grew up we didn't use to have a landfill. We used to dump it straight over the cliff. The garbage truck came, picked up the garbage, went up the hill from my house, and there was a concrete face where it just slid it all into the ocean. Each time you'd have a big, vicious storm, at least the beach was clear enough that you didn't have to worry about whether or not you were going to step on an old tin can and cut a toe off. That's how we've treated the oceans, and in many respects we continue to do it. It may not be as overt, but it still happens.

So can you perhaps comment to the other members of the committee about some of the other things you see as necessary in order to protect that biodiversity. I'll read about it when I get back. I have to go see the boss; the PM wants to see me.

Mrs. Payne, can you relieve me for a few minutes?

Ms Recchia: It's an excellent question. Certainly when we begin to speak of integrated management in the oceans, if we mean that from the perspective of considering each threat in the context of other threats or other activities, it's important to take as integrated an approach as we can.

Our concern with something like moving provisions from other acts to DFO or to the Canada Oceans Act has to do with whether in fact that's going to offer a real advantage or benefit in terms of effectiveness. I think it's important that some of these things be considered from an ecosystem approach. We don't know exactly what that means, but we know that an ecosystem approach means more than just fish, more than just commercial fish stocks.

.1145

DFO approaches what we believe to be a turning point in management of the oceans from the perspective of a fishery management agency. It has been their responsibility to set quotas to manage commercial fish stocks first and foremost; that's what they've been about. That brings a wealth of expertise, a wealth of knowledge. But it also brings limitations.

So in regard to other acts such as the provisions on ocean dumping under CEPA, such as the various provisions applying to land-based sources of marine pollution, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, various things like this, we are concerned about where they should reside in order to be most effective. Where are they going to reside so that they will be treated in a way that does the best job that can be done in terms of taking an ecosystem approach and in terms of considering no single part in isolation, whether you're talking about fisheries or whether you're just talking about dumping.

So I'm not prepared to make specific recommendations about which acts or which parts of which other legislation should move where, because I'm not an expert on those other pieces of legislation or on all the implications. However, I would argue that the criteria should at least begin with how we do the job best and what's going to lead us to fulfilling the vision we have of healthy, productive oceans.

I'm not sure how helpful that is.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Ms Recchia.

In listening to you a moment ago, you asked us to envision an ocean near our ridings. I didn't envision an ocean, but I immediately thought of a picture that hangs in my office here on the Hill. I don't know if you've seen it. It's one that was done by somebody in 1975 and it says, After the Draggers. It's a very profound vision of the dead ocean. That is very vivid in my mind.

Mrs. Ablonczy: You talked about marine protected areas. I would be interested in having you expand on the value to our constituents, to Canadian citizens themselves, of the establishment of such areas and what activities you see taking place in those areas that are different from what would take place in areas that are not so protected.

Ms Recchia: We at World Wildlife Fund envision a family of marine protected areas, if you will. We don't believe a sort of cookie-cutter approach is either necessary or appropriate. We imagine a spectrum of management options, if you could think of it that way, that range from, for example, small, closed areas, no-take zones. There are several of those around the country. One that I'm very familiar with is off west Vancouver, a small marine protected area called Whytecliff Park, which was established at the request of local communities. They petitioned DFO to issue the necessary variation orders to close the area to all kinds of extraction. This is an area about which they felt they wanted to just say that nobody takes anything from this area. It stays there; it stays intact. This area seems to be catching on in B.C.

There's now another area that's being considered for the same kind of closure off Nanaimo. This area is some 260 hectares and is being put forward by, again, the coastal communities that have decided that this area is special. They believe it's worthy of the most stringent protection they can afford it, which is to close it to commercial extraction and recreational extraction. There are other aspects that are still under local consultation.

We view that as one end of the spectrum.

Mrs. Ablonczy: And the value of that to the public would be?

Ms Recchia: The value of that to the public is that most marine organisms, as I'm sure you're aware, produce these very small dispersal larval forms, and some of these areas, if they're positioned correctly, can help act as seed banks to surrounding areas. This is going to be particularly effective, we believe, with species like lobster and scallops, which tend to be themselves somewhat, as adults, relatively sedentary, at least relative to something like cod or salmon, and which produce vast numbers of these larvae that can disperse over great distances.

Fish, lobsters, and many other kinds of marine organisms become exponentially more productive from a reproductive standpoint, more fecund, and produce more eggs as they get bigger and as they get older. So if we have some areas where animals are allowed to get a little older, where the lobsters and scallops can get bigger, they'll produce exponentially more eggs. This can have a very beneficial seeding effect on surrounding areas. That's one impact that's direct and economic.

.1150

Other aspects have to do with the other kinds of use of the area that become more viable, if you will. Scuba diving, recreational yachting, and all of the other kinds of non-consumptive activities can absolutely prosper in these kinds of areas.

We also imagine larger-zoned multiple-use areas, if you will, in which the marine protected area functions to spatially and perhaps temporally separate incompatible human activities, such as dragging and lobstering, fishing and scuba diving, or tourism and aquaculture.

Marine protected areas could serve a variety of functions. If you take something like the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which is one of the most famous and one of the largest managed marine protected areas in the world - it's over 350,000 square kilometres - within that protected area, virtually all human activities, with the exception of oil and gas extraction, occur. There are tourism areas, commercial fishing areas, research and scientific areas, and areas that are deemed environmentally sensitive and are off limits to most activities.

We envision a spectrum. We're a conservation organization, so we're advocating marine protected areas that first and foremost serve a conservation function. We do believe there are some kinds of human activities that are fundamentally incompatible with marine protected areas, regardless of the specific circumstance. At the moment we are inclined to believe that list should include oil and gas exploration and extraction, mineral and other non-renewable exploration and extraction, bottom-dragging or trawling, large-scale dredging, and dumping.

We believe the benefits of these areas, in addition to their direct management benefits, are that hopefully, if planned properly and executed and managed well, they will form a coherent system of marine protected areas that together will complement other marine conservation initiatives and marine sustainable development initiatives, and that this system will be the backbone of our approach to managing the oceans, which places paramount importance on saving what we have and hopefully bringing some things back for future generations.

Mrs. Ablonczy: Thank you. I appreciate that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Just before I go over to Mr. Dhaliwal, I have a question. I asked it last week when CARC was presenting, and it has to do with seals.

I'd like to have your opinion on the effect seals are having. I'm sure you're aware of the increase in numbers and the predatory situation we have on cod and other species included in the fish food chain. There's also the worm problem, or the parasite problem.

Can you give me some indication of your feelings on that?

Ms Recchia: We know we have an ecosystem that for a variety of reasons is to some extent out of whack; it's off kilter. A lot of the groundfish that were previously very abundant are now virtually extinct in some areas and are scarce in others. At the same time as we've seen that, or shortly following that, we've seen this apparent tremendous increase in the populations of several species of seal.

I'm entirely persuaded by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' numbers on seal populations. I'm persuaded to some extent by their data on what the seals are eating. But our concern with what to do about this from a management prospective is that the ecosystem, in our view, is a lot more complicated than the fact that seals eat cod.

What I mean by that is we know seals eat cod. We also know seals eat other fish that eat cod. From the point of view of recovering the cod stocks, I frankly don't know what the best thing is to do. I don't know if the best thing is to go out there and make significant culls to the seal herd.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Could you expand on the other species that, to your knowledge, seals are living off, other than the smaller species? You say they eat larger species.

Ms Recchia: For example, for harp seals, I believe it's estimated that 3% of their diet consists of northern cod. They also eat Arctic cod and capelin.

.1155

These other species are, to some extent, competitors with the cod. Young capelin are food for cod, as you well know, but young capelin also compete with same-age cod for similar resources. Arctic cod are also competitors at different times in their life cycles with capelin and with northern cod.

If you consider it from a strictly statistical point of view, you have a large number of seals out there that are removing large numbers of Arctic cod, large numbers of capelin, and relatively - relative to those two species - small numbers of northern cod. If you take away the seals, then you give an advantage to the capelin and the Arctic cod, which are competing with northern cod, and you give an advantage that way to whatever sized individuals of whatever species might be preying on the northern cod.

I don't know the specifics of the situation, but what we believe is that the ecosystem is sufficiently complex that we can't predict it. I come from a marine mammal science background. My speciality is actually whales and dolphins, not seals, but I have a number of colleagues who I've posed this question to because WWF, as you may know, has taken a somewhat conspicuous profile supporting the seal hunt in its current form. I've called up my colleagues and asked: There are apparently seals in St. John's, what should we be doing?

There are other cases, other modelling examples that you've probably already heard of from places like South Africa, where there was a concern over, I believe, fur seals that were devastating pollock or some similar stocks. They concluded, based on their best modelling, according to their best understanding scientifically of the ecosystem, that wiping out or seriously reducing the fur seals might actually wind up being counter-productive. They were sufficiently uncertain of which of the two options, a call to cull or not to cull basically, would be beneficial from the perspective of recovering the fish stocks of concern. They opted to go with what they viewed as a sustainable management regime, which is what WWF supports.

We see seals as an abundant resource. Certainly there is no reason why they shouldn't be harvested sustainably, and certainly if that can help offset some of the economic hardships that have befallen eastern Canada, that would be terrific. But from a scientific perspective, I don't know.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): In fact, I think that's the view of most people, that it would be sustainable development as opposed to a total kill of any species.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I have a few quick questions, particularly on MPAs, but first let me say that we're happy to have you here articulating very clearly the position of WWF. I would like to congratulate you on the work that they do.

Ms Recchia: Thank you.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I know many people involved in the work in Vancouver as well, Bryan Williams and others, whom I am sure you know.

In regard to the MPAs, my perception is different in that MPAs to me should not be limited just from the fisheries point of view, as you've said. To me, MPAs are much larger in terms of science, in terms of conservation, and there are different combinations of MPAs that can be developed depending on the community needs.

I don't think we're putting limitations in the act, but I think your points are very well taken. We should ensure that it isn't limited, because I don't think its intention is to be limited to strictly looking at it from a fisheries resource point of view, but looking at it from a point of conservation, biodiversity and in terms of the needs for the community, for scientific reasons and a lot of the other reasons why we need MPAs. So I think the committee would look at recommendations to strengthen that view, although I don't agree with you that the intent of the bill is to limit it.

My other question is - and this is an issue previously brought before us - in terms of setting goals, in terms of what areas and what amount of areas should be set out for MPAs and whether we should have a goal or an objective in mind in terms of a percentage or an area as number one....

.1200

Second, because it's a new act, should there be a comprehensive review at some time in the future, whether it's in three years or in five years, to ensure the act is working as we all want it to? A lot of times an act goes forward but the implementation of it may not be workable or doesn't achieve the objectives and goals you want it to. Do you think it would be a good idea to put into the act a provision that within a certain timeframe it will come back to the committee for a comprehensive review, to go back to people like you and other groups and ask whether the act is doing what it should be doing and whether there are changes we can make to the act to strengthen it?

I'd like to hear your view on what you think of those two or three questions. You also may want to comment on aquaculture, which, as you know, is growing in leaps and bounds in Canada, and what you think from a scientific point of view. I know some environmentalists have concerns in the aquaculture area. I know the Minister of the Environment in B.C. has been very tough on new aquaculture. I'd like to hear your views on what problems you have with the aquaculture industry.

Ms Recchia: Thank you. I'll take your points in the order you raised them, as best as I can remember them, if that's all right.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with you on the multiple functions of marine protected areas. I'm inclined to focus on economic values first and foremost, and immediate short-term economic values, because I tend to think that's what people are most concerned about, at least in the first instance.

For the information of committee members, in appendix 5 of our brief is a paper we presented at a conference on science and the management of protected areas. It details some different benefits of marine protected areas and some different designs. It gives the WWF approach in more detail and addresses these excellent points you've raised about the benefits of MPAs as areas for research, for monitoring environmental trends and global change, for evaluating the effects of human activities that occur in other places and so forth.

In terms of trying to come up with a goal for marine protected areas, again that's an excellent question. One of the ideas WWF has been toying with is whether it makes sense to convene some kind of national body that works on envisioning a national MPA system. What should this system look like, not in terms of where these sites would be or how many there would be as a first step, but in sum? Given what we're talking about in terms of the ecology of Canada's three coasts and the values we would seek to protect, what might this system achieve in general terms, how might that fit in with other marine conservation initiatives - obviously there are lots of things you can do other than establish protected areas - and how would that in turn fit in with sustainable development plans?

We've toyed with the idea of proposing to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy that this might be something they could do in the same way that they worked on the sustainable forestry initiative some years ago. This is very much in preliminary thinking at WWF. We're not sure if it's really a good idea.

I'm not sure if it makes sense to discuss it in the context of the Oceans Act, but in terms of trying to construct a vision of what this system would look like, there's some thinking to be done on that. I have had discussions with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans about how to proceed with that thinking, given that they are now potentially moving into a kind of marine protected area that they haven't dealt with in the past, that is, marine protected areas that aren't exclusively fishery management zones.

As you well know, there's a lot we can learn from the world at large. There are marine protected areas all over the world. There are systems of marine protected areas being established by many other countries. Several other countries now have legislation requiring the establishment of marine protected areas, not just enabling it. So I think Canada to some extent can play catch-up and learn from what's going on out there.

We in the WWF don't have the answer for a magic number on how many sites. We are working on developing our ecological representation framework, which will argue that within regions of broad oceanographic similarity, if you consider ocean eco-regions, there should be examples of different kinds of marine protected areas that cover off the representative features of those, and that these should be planned and executed in a way that forms a coherent system to protect things like cod and salmon, which travel over great distances.

We do have a lot of work to do there. WWF would certainly be pleased to participate and offer continued dialogue in the discussion of those larger questions.

On the question of review for the purposes of the Canada Oceans Act, yes, I wholeheartedly agree. One of the recommendations in the CARC-CNF brief has to do with a regular reporting function. In one of the workshops that led to the formulation of the CARC-CNF brief, we were wondering about a four- to five-year interval, not so quick an interval that all the department would be able to do was to work on the next report all the time, just to see how things are going.

.1205

We toyed with different kinds of indicators the minister could use to report on that dealt with such things as process - how the ocean management strategy was coming; how the regional implementation plans were coming - and goals. If a statement of goals gets inserted into the act, it hopefully will translate into measurable progress. Do our ocean environments look like they're doing better? Are beaches swimmable? Are clam beds full of edible clams again? These are just very real to people. There could be a few very simple indicators that I believe could be very useful for us to revisit.

Integrated management, sustainable development, ecosystem approach - we don't really know what all those things mean or how exactly to do them. I think we do need to give ourselves the opportunity to learn from our experiences, to learn from mistakes, and to adjust what we're doing. WWF wholeheartedly supports the idea of a regular reporting back on progress and effectiveness of what's in the act.

Turning to the question of aquaculture, WWF is also very concerned about aquaculture. We believe it certainly can be conducted in a way that is entirely environmentally acceptable and environmentally responsible.

As everyone who conducts aquaculture knows, some sites are obviously better for it than others. We are a little bit concerned that to some extent, because of the economic pressures in some areas, this is being viewed possibly as a panacea for the economic woes in some regions and for the declines in commercial fish stocks. We are concerned that there is at least the possibility, perhaps, of plunging ahead with aquaculture before we really understand all the implications, before we understand the long-term effects. We're certainly concerned about any approach that didn't look at the cumulative impact of aquaculture on other things, such as on a particular water body or bay.

The final caution I'd add with aquaculture is that we are very concerned about the culturing of non-native species. We've had discussions with the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to talk about culturing of Atlantic salmon in the Pacific. We are very concerned about the possible implications of.... Obviously there are escapes. These animals do get out there. They could interbreed and they could displace the native species. We're concerned about that.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I know I'm taking more time than I should, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): We'll go for two short questions, if we can.

Mrs. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Ablonczy: I will defer to Mr. Dhaliwal. I've asked what I wanted to know.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Go ahead, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Thank you. When you have less members here, you can take advantage of that and ask more questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): I won't be giving you my time.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Just one final question. I wonder if there are any efforts by your organization to develop marine protected areas in international waters. I'm thinking particularly of where it's very important, for example, the feeding areas off the Grand Banks, which I think might be something you'd be interested in. Are you looking at international waters where marine protected areas would make very good sense, for example, in that particular area?

Ms Recchia: We are indeed. We have a significant delegation that will be attending, for example, the Second Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. One of the things they will be specifically putting forward is this idea about high-seas marine protected areas.

We also have participated in interventions to the United Nations Conference on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks to consider establishing marine protected areas in these various jurisdictional circular areas - the doughnut holes, the peanut holes - formed by the coming together of different states, exclusive economic zones, or fishery zones.

So we do believe it is important. My work focuses first and foremost on what we do in domestic waters, but the case of the Grand Banks is I think particularly interesting. We work fairly closely with Dr. Jon Lien of Memorial University, Newfoundland. He is also, I believe, on the Fisheries Resources Conservation Council. I know he is interested in exploring the possibility of putting up a marine protected area on the Grand Banks, on the tail in the southeast shoals, that would straddle the 200-mile limit and provide protection to those critically important spawning and nursery areas. This is something John and I have discussed at some length. We're trying to figure out what the implications would be and what are the best means of exploring how to take it forward.

Elsewhere in the world we also have our people in the treaties and advocacy unit in Switzerland work on this issue and in other regions.

So in answer to your question, yes.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I wish you success on that. I think it's very important from an international perspective.

Ms Recchia: Thank you.

.1210

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much. Mr. Dhaliwal took the words right out of my mouth when he spoke about the international spaces.

Following up on that a little bit, quickly, because we do have another presenter here, what in your opinion would have happened had there been a marine protected area around the area of spawning for the northern cod stocks? I'm sure you're going to give the answer I'm expecting, but I'd like to hear it.

Ms Recchia: If we were able to identify all the areas of spawning, we probably would have done a lot better than we have done to date.

First of all, we don't believe, and I don't think anyone believes, that marine protected areas can in and of themselves suffice to conserve all marine species. They contribute, but they can't achieve alone. That's because it matters what we do next to protected areas.

We have this problem with terrestrial parks, for example. If you clear-cut to the edge of a park, that impacts on the park. Those impacts don't stop just because there's a boundary on a map.

That's even more true in the marine environment. As you know, everything in the water is very connected. There are upstream effects and downstream effects. Marine protected areas are very susceptible to the effects of land-based sources of marine pollution, to airborne pollution, to water-borne pollution and to the effects of shipping. For species like bottlenose whales, we have to worry about the impacts of noise. These areas are very vulnerable to the effects coming in from the outside as well as to what we do inside them.

I would suggest one of the reasons the cod are in the state they're in is we haven't managed them very well. I'd suggest we've over-exploited and overfished them. We know certain vessels in a foreign fleet have used illegally small mesh nets, and that's probably been a contributing factor. At the same time, we can't point our finger too quickly just at foreigners; we have to acknowledge our own role in this.

I would certainly argue that had we had some marine protected areas, we might have answers to a couple of questions that are still outstanding.

For one, there's the ongoing debate about draggers and trawlers and what their effects really are on the environment. We might know that if we had a few more areas we didn't drag and trawl. At least until recently, we trawled and dragged basically everywhere we could technologically, so when people ask what the effect of dragging is -

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): When you say ``trawl'', you're talking about otter trawling.

Ms Recchia: Yes. My apologies.

There's a great debate about what the effect of otter trawling or bottom dragging is, and one of the reasons we don't know is you need to have areas where you do and areas where you don't, and then try to figure out what the environmental effect is and what the effect on different bottoms is. It obviously matters what the bottom type is.

If we'd had some of those marine protected areas, we might have been more alert to the environmental effects, positive and negative, of different kinds of fishing. We might have been able to monitor more effectively the environmental conditions that seem to have negatively affected the cod stocks and the colder waters. We might have had better information on how the ecosystem was functioning and we may not have wound up in the position we are in now.

Would it have offered guarantees? I don't believe so.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much. I guess there are no guarantees in this world.

Ms Recchia: I suspect not.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): It's been, as the chairman said earlier, a riveting, fascinating presentation, and I think we could go on for a long time.

I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for the presentation. We certainly look forward to your future work on this. I'm sure we have many more questions we'd like to ask, so perhaps we could have you back another time.

Ms Recchia: I'd be delighted. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.

Next is Mr. Lash, executive director for IUCN.

Mr. Lash, thank you very much for appearing. We'll go right ahead with your presentation. Our numbers are getting fewer because the hour is getting late, but -

Mr. Tim Lash (Executive Director, World Conservation Union): I'll try to speed through.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Well, don't. I have lots of time, so I'm all yours.

Mr. Lash: Thank you very much. My name is Tim Lash. I'm assistant director of the Montreal office of IUCN, the World Conservation Union. I do appreciate the invitation to come here. I was told by Eugene that the committee is interested in knowing what the Oceans Act can do for us.

What I'll do is first of all briefly introduce IUCN and its perspective. I have some documents that I'll leave with you, Madam Chairman, so that I can keep my spoken words brief. They talk about some of the things IUCN does.

.1215

To introduce IUCN, I would like to say why I believe the Oceans Act can contribute to the kinds of sustained ecological vision the IUCN is in business to promote, identify some gaps and some needed clarifications, and offer a few recommendations. I will then mention an event coming up in 1996 in Montreal, where Canada's Ocean Act, I think, will have a chance to show what it is internationally.

IUCN is an international union of non-government organizations and government organizations. There are some 850 members in 125 countries. There are 20 Canadian government and non-government organizations.

The IUCN was started in 1948. Its mission is to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world, conserve the integrity and diversity of nature, and ensure that the use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.

Besides these members, IUCN has networks of experts in six commissions. Three of those include a protected areas commission, an ecosystem management commission, and an environmental law commission.

IUCN has a good deal of experience globally in projects at a local level, in strategies at national and regional levels, and in synthesizing these in knowledge-based publications.

I'm bringing to you some comments synthesized from various sources in IUCN. Dr. Graeme Kelleher from marine affairs and marine protected areas is an Australian who has recently put together a four-volume series called A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. I'll leave volume 1 with you. Others can be made available. Volume 1 includes methodology and some general discussion. Richard Tarasofsky is with the IUCN environmental law centre in Bonn. Adrian Phillips is the chair of the Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas. Perhaps most importantly, I had a chance to discuss issues in Banff at a meeting of the protected areas commission with some Canadian IUCN members, who are most interested in this act.

What are the issues from IUCN's perspective? Environmentally sustainable development has been adopted internationally as a goal by many countries in the last decade, notably in the Rio Declaration and in the Convention on Biological Diversity, but it's still not happening, and this has been particularly clear in marine conservation resource use. Environmental sustainable development is often not reflected in national laws.

There seem to be two families of reason that come up, and one of them has to do with the difficulty of getting hold of what ecosystem management is. It's hard to know what to do and it's hard to understand what the interconnections are amongst different parts of ecosystems.

The second kind of difficulty, typically in international experience, is how to bring together the many related mandates to integrate planning for complementary exercise of those mandates. That includes difficulties in integrating at the national level and difficulties in coordinating and co-management at the regional level.

Looking at the draft of Canada's Ocean Act that is now available, it is very exciting because it really does have a potential to address these issues. It pulls together a number of things in expanding environmental concerns, assessment, planning, and regulations to the economic zone and the territorial seas. The strategy really holds hope, I think, for pulling together some of the disparate interests and mandates that need to be brought together.

We like the act. It seems to have the potential to provide a vision that is true to marine ecological realities and long-term human interests in them, including environmental security. It's a vision that would be implemented by many partners. The act and the strategy can also provide a forum to bring the partners and interests together. It goes some way, certainly, toward providing the tools that are needed to enhance existing tools and allow development of new ones as we find the need in the strategies.

From IUCN's standpoint Canada can, with this act, contribute to the international development of institutions for sustainable management. Canada can contribute to this by being ready, in terms of its purposes and objectives in this act, to sit around the table with other ocean states it shares oceans or ocean boundaries with, notably the United States, in the Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic, and the circumpolar countries around the Arctic Ocean.

.1220

Clearly, the act has an opportunity to do this kind of management well in the Canadian jurisdiction. On the international, global scene, there's an opportunity to provide a useful example of leadership to others. Cheri Recchia mentioned the other countries Canada can catch up with. It's also true that people do look to Canada internationally to provide leadership. And there are many that Canada has an opportunity to be usefully ahead of, if you like. I don't say that in a competitive sense.

What are some of the gaps that appear or concerns or assurances it would be useful to have in the current draft? Some of them relate to uncertainties about how the strategy will be implemented. Perhaps they don't need to be incorporated in the draft law, but that too may be useful. However, others appear to put unnecessarily narrow limitations on what the bill enables or will enable the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to do and, perhaps through the leadership of that minister, the participation of others.

It stops short, for example, of inland waters and terrestrial effects that are doubtless interconnected and have a big effect on the very marine areas that this ocean is intended to help manage. Those are land-based pollutants and fresh and salt water migrating fish, in both directions.

It does appear to stop at the limit of the territorial seas and the exclusive economic zone. But Canada is very clearly an actor in this international scene and Canadian individuals and vessels do have effects on the high seas.

The apparent focus on fisheries resources has been mentioned already, but oceans obviously contain more than fisheries resources, and people care about them. Besides, who knows what plants and animals out there that aren't resources now may become resources? Anyway, if you want to protect a fisheries resource it seems we don't know enough about it to identify with certainty what is habitat and what isn't habitat. What does it depend on?

I will mention some of the concerns within that may be unnecessarily narrow in the legislation itself, concerns that could be made more explicit about how to implement the strategy. It's not explicit, for example, in clauses 31 to 33 inclusive that ``interested persons and bodies'' really are going to refer it to as wide a group as is needed, a group including provinces and territories, NGOs, coastal communities, current users, fishers, aboriginal people and, in particular, other states with shared oceans.

Second, the strategy appears to ignore in its principles that there are other related strategies, conventions and policies that it will be important for this one to relate to, both nationally and internationally. It would be useful for the strategy some way or another to apply to the introduction of alien organisms and the management of marine genetic resources, and to possibly also deal with timing, reporting and monitoring so that there is a feedback kind of thing happening as the strategy is being implemented.

Let me turn to the recommendations.

To address these gaps, the first recommendation is that in the preamble it would be very useful to add a ``whereas'' clause to set the context in the scene. It might read something like: ``Whereas Canada promotes conservation of the diversity and integrity of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems and populations...''.

In terms of logic flow, if that were put at number 2 in the set of ``whereases'' it would provide a good grounding for the following one, which talks about the development of certain aspects of those ecosystems and populations as resources.

The second recommendation has to do with the principles for the strategy that are enunciated in clause 30. It's really important that the principles reflect the best current knowledge and wisdom about conservation and sustainable development, and about integrating multiple players to help achieve a complex common goal, which in this case is marine health and sustained benefits from the resources.

.1225

You really do need the best reflected because the purpose of having principles where many things are unknown, which is the case we are bravely facing here with this legislation, is that sound principles lead to the most effective actions now. They also provide the best alerts for further development of future actions. It is important that the principles be sound.

The first is the definition of sustainable development in clause 30, paragraph (a). That appears to be borrowed directly from the World Commission on Environment and Development. I suggest that ``sustainable development'' is a pesky sort of phrase. It's open to all kinds of ambiguity.

Please turn to page 10 of this document, Caring for the Earth, which has an alternate definition of sustainable development that might work: ``...improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems.''

I will leave this with you.

Under sustainable development it would also be useful to articulate some further principles. I'll name a couple of them. One is the conservation of the integrity and diversity of ecosystems and populations. A second principle, enunciated in the Convention on Biological Diversity and in the Rio Declaration, is a precautionary approach to development. A third, mentioned in article 195 in UNCLOS, is the duty not to transfer one type of environmental harm for another.

The second set of principles is in clause 30, paragraph (b). Those are the principles of integrated management. Integrated management is also a phrase that packs a lot into two words, and it is capable of causing confusion.

It seems that the purpose or the intent of integrated management is how to include all who are active in the primary area of application in the marine areas we're talking about, but it also means integrated in how to relate to others outside that area who are relevant. I mentioned earlier that ``integrated'' means integrating what's going on at least in a policy sense, if not in a program sense, within the area of the estuarine, coastal and marine areas with outside ecological connections, high seas or land-based. Second, it means integrating with other related strategies and policies.

Perhaps the most important, and sometimes the thorniest and most difficult to achieve, is how you get all the players comfortably together to talk about something without them feeling threatened, because you are after all defining common objectives. How do you respect the integrity and the interests of these people and yet really encourage them to bring their creativity, their networks and their perspectives with integrity? Any strategy on the oceans needs all of these perspectives to be brought with all the integrity they can be.

There was talk earlier about representivity, and that's only within federal government agencies. There are all the provincial and territorial concerns. There are aboriginal people's concerns, non-government concerns, fishers' concerns, coastal communities' concerns and all of that. How do you bring it together?

I believe some of these principles should be enunciated. They have to do with respecting existing mandates and building to enhance them when you are trying to get coordination and integration of policy aims.

That does suggest that clause 28, which kind of clears the water in a way by saying we're not talking about freshwater, is perhaps a bit too harsh. In terms of federal jurisdiction or regulations that may be mandated under the strategy, that might perhaps be a useful thing to do.

On the other hand, if what you're trying to do is get the objectives together it would be useful to say even while you're perhaps excluding them from regulation under this strategy or under this act that you do intend to make connections to ecological causes within fresh water or terrestrial or high seas.

The final set of recommendations have to do with the purpose for marine protected areas - that's been heard earlier this morning - in clauses 35 and 36. I echo what has already been said. We believe it should be an explicit purpose for marine protected areas under Fisheries and Oceans and for actions within those protected areas. The explicit purpose should enable conservation for non-fishery populations and habitats, as well as for fishery stocks and habitats.

.1230

Almost certainly this will be needed to complement existing instruments. It will be important to have the capability to implement things that may be needed as the comprehensive strategy is developed. The committee has talked about - and several questions have been raised about - consolidation of legislation or perhaps duplication or efficiency and effectiveness. I'm not a legal expert, but I wonder if it's not possible also to understand that where a marine protected area capability is put in for conservation of ecosystems, it may also include abilities to delegate some powers as needed.

It seems to me that what we're trying to do here is set up a legal framework that will allow all the partners to work together. What we don't want is to find that narrowly defined principles or objectives can prevent or unnecessarily complicate our ability to legally enable needed cooperative and integrated efforts. For that purpose, I think it is very important to have the objectives of the different actions broadly and deeply stated.

In conclusion, I think there's no question that this Canadian act can carry excellent examples and leadership forward. That will be important internationally to developing countries with marine coasts and in North America in a Northern American free trade area context, where there is a commission on environmental cooperation working to get harmonization so that the United States, Mexico and Canada can talk together around the same table in environmental matters, and in the circumpolar realm, which includes eight circumpolar countries, notably Russia, that are looking for their own legislative development.

I'm sure too that this Canadian act will be seen and evaluated by the international community in this light. One particular occasion will be in Montreal in October 1996. The IUCN is sponsoring the first world conservation congress. I'll leave you some brochures that describe it. We're expecting some 2,000 people from organizations and expert networks around the world, as well as Canadian invitees, to talk about conservation issues. Marine conservation is key. There will be a Canadian-sponsored workshop on the Arctic. I'm also certain that Arctic protected areas and Canada's legal ability to do Arctic conservation will be an item of discussion.

In conclusion, I would like to say on a personal note that as a Canadian working for a respected international organization, I would be very proud and I would really love to have this Oceans Act to provide the kind of leadership that Canada is almost doing now internationally.

I will leave you these documents for further information about IUCN and about its programs that relate to this kind of thing. There is now a Montreal office of IUCN, and we would be very pleased to put our connections in international work and our international experience at your disposal.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Mr. Lash. The number of people who have made presentations to us on this act is indicative of the particular interest in the act. The very welcome information and the recommendations we've received are overwhelming.

Ms Ablonczy, I defer to you at this point, if you have any other questions.

Mrs. Ablonczy: Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Lash, I was very interested in your discussion of how Canada is taking a leadership role in this oceans management area. I wondered if there were any other respects in which you could recommend that Canada take a greater leadership role in the world community in this regard.

Mr. Lash: Do you mean in relation to oceans?

Mrs. Ablonczy: That's right.

.1235

Mr. Lash: I hate to do this, but can I get back to you on that?

Mrs. Ablonczy: Sure, that would be fine.

Mr. Lash: I know, for example, that Canada is now working with some new endangered species legislation. I know that IUCN is aware of that legislation. I'm not sure whether or not it has made a comment on that legislation at this point. That would certainly be an area with respect to marine conservation where I think Canada has an opportunity to be moving at least on the crest with the best, if not ahead of it.

I will take that question back and consider it, if I can get back to you.

Mrs. Ablonczy: Sure. I think that would be very helpful for future work of this committee in particular.

Mr. Lash: Would it be useful for you if I had a deadline of some sort?

Mrs. Ablonczy: Perhaps, Madam Chairman, you could suggest something. I would think that our examination of this legislation will go on for probably another couple of weeks.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Yes, we'll be having some more discussions. I would recommend that you get it to us as soon as possible, but certainly a week to ten days should be fine.

Mr. Lash: I'll see what I can do.

Mrs. Ablonczy: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): I don't have any further questions.

Mr. Lash, again I thank you for your very informative presentation. As I said before, it's given us a lot of food for thought. We look forward to the day when this legislation is in place and hope that when it is it serves your needs and will be one that you'll be happy to work with.

Mr. Lash: Thanks for the chance to talk to you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Thank you.

That's the end of our presentations. We're adjourned until 3:30 this afternoon.

;