[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 2, 1995
.1540 
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): My name is Jean Payne, and I'm the vice-chair of the fisheries committee.
We'll start off this round with Ms Shelley Bryant.
Shelley, I'll ask you to introduce yourself and tell us who you are. Then I think you have a presentation.
Ms Shelley Bryant (Management Committee of Action - Environment): I'm Shelley Bryant. I'm on the management committee of a non-profit environmental organization in Newfoundland called Action: Environment. As well, I've been sitting on the steering committee of the Canadian Oceans Caucus as the Newfoundland and Labrador representative for the last three years.
Since the late winter I've been involved in a marine conservation area project with the Protected Areas Association here in St. John's. We've been travelling around the province and talking with as many people as we possibly can about the idea of marine conservation areas, which is part of the reason I'm here today, as well as to comment on the Oceans Act.
The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much. As you've already said, we're here to discuss the Oceans Act and to ask for your views on it. We'll welcome you and let you start with your presentation.
Ms Bryant: Thanks.
I should also mention that I have with me Bernard Martin, who is a fisher from Petty Harbour. I'll just zoom out and show him to you. There he is over in the corner.
The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): I can see him.
Ms Bryant: This technology is fun to play with.
I have some general comments first, mainly regarding this consultation process and the act. Then I have a number of specific comments, and I'll go through the act section by section with the comments.
First of all, regarding this consultation process, as you folks have heard before from a number of other people in the other meetings you've had, I am quite disappointed with the way this has been conducted. I think it's inadequate.
I received a draft of the Oceans Act just a few weeks back at a briefing session that DFO held. I was not notified of this video teleconference directly. Irene Novaczek, who is the chair of the Canadian Oceans Caucus, was apprised of the one in Halifax and let the steering committee know. Upon calling about that one, I was informed that there was going to be one in St. John's.
My assumption when I left the briefing session at DFO was that those of us who were there and had participated in that would be apprised of any further consultation and that the standing committee would be making decisions on the consultation process within the next week or so after that. That was my understanding, but that did not occur.
Not only have we not had enough time to prepare, but we don't have the resources in the environmental community and the conservation community to actually get together and discuss some of these things. I haven't been able to prepare the kind of presentation that I would like to, and that would be to provide you with specific wording and alternate wording for some of the sections I have concerns with.
I think this type of format, this appearing as a formal witness before the standing committee, is rather an exclusionary process. It's not terribly open to people, and there might be a number of people who would be interested in and have concerns about the Oceans Act but would not feel comfortable in this kind of format because it is quite formal.
.1545
The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Could I just interject before you go on, Shelley? There has been an extremely long consultation process over the last 18 months or so, and over 600 copies of the act have been sent out to different institutions and organizations. We've done a fair amount of consultation with the various stakeholders throughout the country.
I don't know when you got the copy of the act. I understand you may not have had a lot of time to prepare for it, but if you've had a chance to go through the act, then you can just give us your views on it. You don't have to have a formal presentation or anything like that. You can just give us your views.
Ms Bryant: I'll do that.
While 600 copies may have been sent out, the community I work in is the environmental and conservation community, and a request we made to the Canadian Oceans Caucus for resources to actually go through the act hasn't been met. As a result, when I did actually receive it, it was at the DFO briefing session.
Anyway, I would like to make a recommendation to the standing committee regarding consultation about the Oceans Act. It's in four parts.
The first part is we need more time. This has been pushed and people have not had enough time to go through it. For instance, even to look at this process today here in St. John's, we have four people involved in this video teleconference, and I know there are many more than four people in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador who are concerned about the Oceans Act and would like the opportunity to comment on it.
Second, we need to be more inclusive. Fishers and conservationists need to be involved. That's critically important to the success of the initiative and the success of the implementation of the Oceans Act.
Third, I'd like to encourage the standing committee to encourage the minister to provide some resources to fishers and conservationists to do the work that is required.
Fourth, in order to be respectful of the time and effort people put into participating in something like this, it's important that the standing committee provide feedback on what suggestions were incorporated into the redrafting and provide a rationale for why that occurred.
In terms of more specific suggestions or comments about the act, first of all, a general purpose to the act would be helpful in guiding the interpretation of it.
More specifically, in part I, ``Canada's Maritime Zones'', I'll speak of clause 14, regarding the exclusive economic zone, along with the rights of Canada that are recognized there. I would like to see some language around the responsibilities of Canada, specifically the responsibilities to the marine environment.
Subparagraph 14(b)(iii) alludes to this by saying ``the protection and preservation of the marine environment'', but I think it should be spelled out a little more clearly. I'd like to see the end of subparagraph 14(b)(iii) read ``for all Canadians'', perhaps, or ``as the common heritage of all Canadians'', to bring in the fact that this is for all Canadians.
In clause 18, on the continental shelf, there should be wording recognizing again the responsibility of protecting and conserving the resources that are referred to there, rather than just the exploitation of them.
.1550
In general, reading through the bill, I think part II on the oceans management strategy is too vague. It really needs to be substantiated. It's where the action is; it's where the meat of the Oceans Act is, and I think it needs some beefing up.
First of all, clause 28 refers to the exclusion of rivers and lakes in the oceans management strategy. I understand why this is there. I know DFO is wishing to give responsibility for inland waters to the provinces. However, I think we should be reminded of the constitutional responsibility of DFO for fresh water, and that constitutional responsibility will not go just by having management responsibility go to the provinces.
The other thing, of course, is that activities on inland water, rivers and lakes, can have tremendous impact on the integrity of the oceans ecosystem.
Clause 29 is on development and implementation of the strategy. The phrase ``interested persons'' comes up quite often throughout the act, and I'm wondering how interested persons will be determined. Who will decide who is interested and who isn't?
I'd also like to see a timeframe for the national strategy. I think it's important to know when the strategy will be developed.
Clause 30 is on the principles of the national strategy. First of all, I think sustainable development is not a principle but a goal. Sustainability is a principle. I think perhaps this section could be broken down into principles and goals and objectives, perhaps with the goals and objectives being sorted out as the strategy gets developed.
In an act perhaps we might look at principles only, with mention in the act that the specific goals and objectives of the national strategy will be developed. Under principles, though, I would like to see one of sustainability rather than sustainable development or maintenance of the health of the ocean. I would also like to see precautionary principles in decision-making and a whole ecosystem approach in the strategy.
Some of the goals might be sustainable development, sustainability of coastal community and livelihood, and restoration and maintenance of the health of the ocean ecosystem. Some of the objectives or tools we might use would be integrated resource management or integrated management. Sustainable harvesting practices, use and development of sustainable technology, and marine protected areas would be objectives as well, tools to use. It's important that these objectives be achievable and measurable so that we can monitor our success.
Clause 31 is on the development of integrated management plans. Again, I have the same concerns here as I do for clause 29, which are the phrase ``interested persons'' and the timeframe for when these plans will be developed.
Clause 32, specifically paragraph 32(b), is about the development of other policies and programs. Along with ``ministers, boards and agencies'', I'd like to see ``interested persons'' there again, provided we figure out who they might be. In subparagraph 32(c)(i), which is on the establishment of advisory or management boards at the discretion and the designation of the minister, I think history and experience have shown us that most or many ministerially appointed boards are often not broad enough in their inclusion. They're quite selective. The Fisheries Resources Conservation Council might serve as a current example of that.
.1555
We need some assurance in the act of coastal community and fishery representation on those boards and some democratic way of choosing the members rather than ministerial appointees.
In subparagraph 32(c)(ii), what is the definition of ``established management bodies''? Are they government bodies only? Is that the intent? An example of what I would consider a management body that isn't a government-appointed management body, not a government body, would be the Petty Harbour Fishermen's Co-op. They participate very directly and extensively in the management of the fisheries around their area, and they, to me, are a management body for their area. So I'm wondering if they would only be government bodies.
Paragraph 32(d) says ``in consultation with interested persons''. This is on the establishment of marine environmental quality guidelines, objectives and criteria. The ``may'' should be a ``shall'' here. Marine environmental quality guidelines are critical to a conservation-minded act, and the minister should have more obligation than a ``may''. It shouldn't be so discretionary.
I wonder also if there might be something in that clause regarding either an environmental auditor or the sustainable development commissioner, when that person gets appointed, to watch the progress of the plans that have been developed under the act and provide a mechanism for accountability.
Paragraph 33(1)(b) regards the minister entering into private agreements with individuals or bodies. The inclusion of individuals causes concern. The reason is there's a tremendous amount of fear, certainly amongst fisheries I've spoken with - and I think it's a justified fear - about the privatization of the fishery and the potential incorporation of ITQs into our management regime. This kind of wording allows for that to happen.
An example of where that has gone wrong is New Zealand. I'm not totally versed in what's happened in the New Zealand fishery, but the establishment of the ITQ system there has caused a fair bit of problems.
Subclause 33(2) is on consultation. Again, the ``may'' should be a ``shall''. The minister has a responsibility to consult with people. We need detail on this consultation process. Who is going to be consulted? What type of process will it be? How will the minister be accountable in the consultation process?
To date, DFO has had a very poor track record in consultation. It may be improving slightly, certainly with individuals. Some individuals are learning what constitutes a good consultation process, but we need some stronger language there, some more assurance that there will actually be meaningful and inclusive consultation.
Clause 35 is on marine protected areas. I'd like to make a general comment on the whole bent of the marine protected areas part. It's very fisheries resource oriented, as opposed to protecting the ocean for its own sake. The wording is ``protection of fishery resources and their habitat''. That applies to the emergency marine protected area as well.
.1600
What if there were an area under stress or at risk that did not involve a fishery at that time? Not everything is exploited at all times. If the bent is just towards fisheries resources and the habitat for the fisheries, then other areas in need of protection might be excluded. I would like to separate the two.
Again, I think the ``may'' in terms of establishing a marine protected area should be a ``shall''. It's a critical tool in ensuring the conservation and sustainability of the ocean's health, and I think the minister should have more obligation to establish these areas and perhaps to refer also to a target percentage of areas protected in the exclusive economic zone. This might be an opportunity to do that and to actually make a commitment to protect a certain percentage of that area.
I also think there should be reference made to human activities outside the marine protected areas. It should say that such activities may not impact negatively on the marine protected area. It's very important because what potentially could happen when we begin to establish these areas with these core areas of no take or no harvest or no extraction is that there may be pressure from people who are using the area outside the protected area to actually use the outside areas more severely or exploit them more dramatically because they have been excluded from protected areas. I think it's important. That recognizes the fluid nature of the ocean environment.
As for clause 36 regarding the emergency situations and the establishment of marine protected areas, again, I think it should not be so fisheries oriented.
I wonder if I might have a comment from you folks when I finish on what the thinking was here, what the reason was for the emergency 90-day marine protected area. I'm just curious. It's not that I think it's a bad idea.
Again, what would happen if there were an area at tremendous risk but where there was no fishery at that moment, like a cod spawning ground? We don't have a cod fishery happening right now. A cod spawning ground could be at risk but it mightn't be protected because it isn't a current fisheries habitat.
How do we determine or how does the Governor in Council determine when something is at risk? What are the criteria? I personally would argue that currently just about everything is at risk, that 75% of global fisheries are in crisis and that we could actually have an emergency marine protected area in just about the whole ocean right now. There need to be some clearly defined criteria for what ``at risk'' is.
In subclause 36(3), I think the 90 days for a temporary marine protected area is too short. It's impossible to determine anything in 90 days, especially in the ocean when things are.... If we have to collect some data to find out some information about the health of the area that had been closed, we might have to wait until the next spawning season, for instance, to know if some of the fish had returned. I think 90 days is too short for a temporary closure.
.1605
Part III of the bill, subclause 40(2), is about encouragement of activities, what activities the minister will encourage. I'd like to see some language there around the sustainability of the oceans ecosystem, not just sustainable development and understanding in management but the integrity of the ecosystem.
In paragraph 41(2)(d) under ``Canadian Coast Guard'', I'm wondering if the role of the maintenance of ecosystem integrity might be expanded for the coast guard under this act. Currently they have responsibility for marine pollution prevention and response.
The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Before you get into that section of it, one of the members here has to leave in a short time, and he wanted to get some sections done.
Mr. White, did you want to start some questions at this point or did you want to wait until the presentation is completed?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I think, Madame Chairman, that it's appropriate, since Shelley feels she didn't have enough time to look at this, that she go through it.
The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): So you have enough time to wait for that?
Okay then, Shelley, continue with the presentation.
Ms Bryant: I'm almost finished anyway.
I wonder if the role of the coast guard in the maintenance of ecosystem integrity of the oceans could be expanded under this act. They're already out there; they're already responsible for marine pollution prevention. It fits into DFO's expanded mandate towards conservation, and with the coast guard being part of DFO, it's also a cost-effective and efficient way of going about things. If the people are already out there, they can have responsibilities for more than just ship safety and navigation.
In clause 42 under ``Marine Sciences'', I think again the discussion there should be a shell. I think many people would argue that there hasn't been enough marine science to date. We know more about the surface of the moon than we know about the ocean floor, and that's a pretty sorry state. We live here; we don't live on the moon. I think the obligation is fairly strong to actually conduct good marine science.
I wonder what the difference is between paragraphs (a) and (e) under clause 42. Paragraph (a) says ``collect data for the purpose of understanding oceans'' and (e) says ``carry out investigations for the purpose of understanding oceans''. I don't know why they're both in there. There might be some legal jargon reasons, but I don't know.
Under the section for marine science, I think there should be specific provisions for baseline data collection and the monitoring of ecosystem health in marine protected areas specifically. I think if we're going to establish these areas, we're going to be obligated to provide resources to effectively monitor the health. We need baseline information before the areas are established. I think it would be helpful to have that in the act up front.
Again, in keeping with the fact that we know more about the surface of the moon than about the surface of the ocean floor, I think marine substrata ocean floor mapping should be a priority. That might already be fairly well covered in the oceanography section, but it might be important to spell it out a little more clearly.
I'd also like to see some wording on the role of traditional ecological knowledge in data collection of marine ecosystems. It doesn't always have to be scientists with PhDs. There's a tremendous amount of knowledge, especially about the floor and especially inshore, of the areas that have been fished for hundreds of years.
.1610
In clause 42, paragraph (i) reads ``participate in ocean technology development.'' I'd like to see some reference made to fishing technology specifically, with ``sustainable fishing technology'' or ``appropriate fishing technology'', however you want to word it.
In clause 43, paragraph (b), again, I think the ``may'' should be a ``shall''. This is under powers of the minister.
I have a few closing comments. I think this act is sorely needed. It's potentially a wonderful tool in helping us ensure the maintenance, restoration and preservation of the oceans' health. It can also help us go some way toward avoiding another collapse in the stocks, as has happened with the northern cod.
However, I think if that is the goal of this act it can only be realized if the current bill is strengthened substantially. It doesn't go far enough as it stands now.
Once again I think we need to slow down the process to develop something that is truly well worth the effort. I think we always have choices when we're doing this kind of work. We can put something together fairly quickly and not have it do the job or we can take our time and do it a little better and actually have something that is worth the effort.
Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Well, Shelley, for someone who wasn't prepared, I think that was a rather in-depth kind of analysis. Thank you very much. That was a very good presentation. You've covered a number of points others covered and a number that they didn't.
I'm going to now let the chair assume the chair. He will probably have some questions for you. He's been sitting there listening to you attentively. I'll talk to you a little later on.
Ms Bryant: Okay. Take care.
The Chairman: Thank you, Shelley. I got in a little late. I'm sorry.
Mr. White has some questions.
Mr. White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Shelley, you did a good job for not having had much time to prepare. I have three questions.
The first refers to paragraph 17(1)(b). That refers to ``a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines of the territorial sea of Canada'', which can be construed as leaving out the nose and the tail of the bank. I'm sure this has come up in committee several times. Have you any observations on that?
Ms Bryant: Do you mean specifically to the language?
Mr. White: Well, it appears nebulous.
Ms Bryant: Right.
Yes, I was looking for that. I was looking for the nose and the tail when I was going through the section on the continental shelf. I was satisfied by the words ``where the outer edge of the continental margin'', but I have to admit that wasn't really where I was concentrating. That whole first part of the act is not what I was concentrating on. If people find it vague, perhaps it does need some rewording.
Mr. White: Thank you.
There is mention of fees in this particular piece of legislation, although I believe it has been covered as to when those fees might be charged, and where and so on.
For instance, in your organization, Action: Environment, is there a desire from the organization to have fees go toward environmental activities, agencies and so on?
Ms Bryant: Fees charged, for instance, getting -
.1615
Mr. White: Fees charged to fishermen, for instance, funding to go towards environmental protection and that sort of thing.
Ms Bryant: Oh, I see. So the fees that would be charged would go towards.... Is that what you're saying?
Mr. White: Yes.
Ms Bryant: Oh, that would be quite splendid.
Mr. White: There's no doubt in my mind about that. I just am surprised that you never asked, I guess.
Ms Bryant: Asked about where the money would go?
Mr. White: Yes.
Ms Bryant: God, I don't know. It never even occurred to me. That's a fabulously novel idea from the federal government. I'd love to see it. I'd love to see some kind of structure.
But it's really important, if fishers are going to be charged fees, that they be consulted about those fees and about their ability to in fact pay them, given that their livelihoods have in many cases been stripped away and what they haul in isn't as much as what they used to. It is important to consult with fishers if they're going to be charged.
Mr. White: I am not a part of the government and I'm not offering; I'm just asking.
You spent some time at the beginning of your presentation on the consultation process. You talked about receiving a draft a few weeks back. You weren't advised. At least some time ago, you lacked having resources to prepare and so on and so forth, and you can't properly supply alternate wording. What other consultation process would you have preferred?
Ms Bryant: I would have liked the opportunity for myself and other interested conservationists and environmentalists to get together with fishers and talk about the act. Part of my learning process of it as well is to be able to contribute meaningfully to it, to have other people's experiences brought into the discussion, to actually have a dialogue about it, and to have that dialogue include perhaps members of the standing committee as well - people who will be involved in the redrafting of it.
It's very important. We were having a conversation about this before the video teleconference started. Something that technology and improvements in technology don't always allow us to do is have that dialogue and just sit around and hash things out. Sitting in my office, in isolation, going through the act is not likely to draw out as many suggestions as discussing it with other people would.
I would have liked to have seen fishers consulted directly, in fact. Between yesterday and today, I spoke with at least four or five people who would be quite interested in this, and they were not apprised of it. They had no idea this video teleconference was even happening.
Also, you could have something a little less intimidating for people, so that instead of sitting and making a formal presentation, they could just sit down and chat about it.
Mr. White: Thank you.
The Chairman: I want to grab on to this before I go over to questions.
I'm always concerned about consultation or lack thereof, but in some instances you can consult on an issue and use the breadth of consultation as an excuse not to take action.
I've asked this specific question, because this has come up over the last two days. In listening to some of the witnesses, I started to get concerned that there was no consultation and this had been done in isolation.
That is absolutely not the case. CARC, the Canadian Arctic Resource Council, which is one of the senior environmental groups we count on for independent assessment, ideas and comments, held a series of workshops, and that's actually where we got your name. I got two pages of individuals from across Canada who represent a whole breadth of different opinions. They were very concentrated on trying to come up with some suggestions to first of all underline the importance of having an Oceans Act and also to get input. We had the World Wildlife Fund here earlier today.
.1620
What we tried to do as a committee is make sure we met with the large umbrella groups when we got the bill, because it came to us pretty quickly as well, and we asked them who else we should make sure was asked for their input.
So this has not been done in isolation. It may not have been enough - I'm not saying it was - but I want to put on the record that because of the concerns that were raised, at the last meeting I asked specifically for the department to give me briefing notes that we could share with everybody on the consultation process.
I'm just going to read this. The first step was the NABST consultations. They were carried out across Canada over a period of 18 months, starting in 1992.
The second step was the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' consultations on the minister's vision document, which came out of the previous consultations. The vision document was released in November 1994. The document was distributed to 600 individuals: NGOs, fishermen's organizations, industry associations, academic institutions, aboriginal organizations, ocean industry organizations, and community organizations. Over 200 responses to the vision document were received.
In November 1994, meetings were held across Canada seeking the views of representatives from universities, fishing and ocean industries, aboriginal peoples, environmental NGOs, and provinces. They say these meetings included such groups as the Eastern Fishermen's Federation, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, and the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society, which are very representative groups. I know that members many times have said that the group really doesn't represent them, and I appreciate that.
The third step was consultations with 20 other federal departments to seek their views on the initial documents after the consultations in the field.
Mr. White: From what you've just said, though, wasn't all of that prior to the initial legislation coming out?
The Chairman: It is; it's prior to the legislation. Mr. White, the process is that we can't do anything until the bill gets referred to us from the House. This bill got referred to us on October 3, which was early. We were hoping to get it, with support from all parties here, after introduction and first reading through a special order in the House so that we could do much more extensive consultations.
My point is simply that with the limited resources we have as a committee, we are doing our best. We can't travel because we need consent of the House. Normally we don't get consent of the House to travel because Parliament must lead by example in trying to reduce its expenditures wherever possible. So we're using technology like this. I realize it's not the best. I'd rather be down in Newfoundland and I would rather have been down in Halifax, but we're doing our best as a committee to reach out.
If there are others out there who wish to be heard on the bill, we'll give them opportunities to do it. We heard yesterday from some of the fishermen that they couldn't get copies of the bill. I asked the department and they said anybody who requested a copy got it. That may not be the case.
I'm not sure what you want us to do. Do you want us to hold the bill up? CARC and others, which are national organizations, tell us not to. We're sort of between a rock and a hard place on the consultative end of this.
Ms Bryant: May I respond?
The Chairman: Yes.
Ms Bryant: I have a few things. The consultation process that you just outlined with the NABST and the vision document and so forth may well have been quite adequate, but it was on the vision document. The vision document was fairly broad in its scope and with its motherhood language and so on. It's not a draft bill by any means.
The CARC and CNF consultations you referred to that were held earlier this year, which I attended, were not on the Oceans Act. We had a presentation about the vision document. We commented on that. We commented on the need for an Oceans Act. We were there to talk about the development of a national marine conservation strategy, which is much broader than the discussion of the act. We didn't have a draft in front of us, so that consultation does not pertain to this one. It's not the same information. It's still oceans management and conservation, but they're apples and oranges.
.1625
I guess my feeling is that people are saying they haven't been consulted enough and this process is not open enough. That has to be listened to.
It's easy enough to argue and say, oh poof, we've done all kinds of things, but people have obviously been excluded. I called the Petty Harbour Fishermen's Co-op yesterday or the day before about this. They didn't hear about it. They hadn't heard, and of all the people here in Newfoundland they would have some comments; they always do.
Any other people I've spoken with who had been at the DFO briefing session about the act, which was as close as they'd come to finding out about what was in it - and that was a few weeks ago - hadn't been contacted. I know you folks have been supplied with that list of names because I think Larry Coady gave you information from us immediately afterward.
I think the point is not to get into a discussion of who did this and who did that and who didn't do that and so on. I understand that CARC and perhaps the World Wildlife Fund are telling you to get on with it because they've been waiting for decades for this act. I feel fairly confident that they also want to do a good job on it, and if that means another two, three or four months before this process goes on, they would be happier with that than they would with having it pushed through.
I know they have specific suggestions, but they also have resources too. As large organizations they have paid staff who can actually spend time on this. They're not doing it on an unpaid, voluntary basis.
So people are saying that -
The Chairman: I hear you. I want to make the point. I have to be honest with you. I've been around seven years and I criticize my own government all the time, but on this particular bill I think there's been an enormous amount of consultation over the years.
It was tabled in Parliament in June - I think it was sometime in June for first reading - so I'm astonished that some of the representative groups were not contacted by the department. I would assume they were, like the maritime fishermen federation and....
We'll check on that, and we'll check that they in turn didn't sort of flow it through. We'll check and we'll find out who indeed was notified and contacted. I understand we have to make sure they understand there's a process here.
Ms Bryant: I understand your concerns. I think you're being pushed to get this through quickly because there are Treasury Board implications in the act, but there is an obligation to do a good job and....
The Chairman: Okay.
That being said and done, if you know individuals who wish to have some input and who can't get a copy of the bill, they will be able to get it through the clerk or through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I encourage them to go through it, review it, and send us their comments by fax or by mail.
We know this bill is a good bill, but there is a lot missing and we're trying to find out how this committee may be able to recommend a better bill.
Ms Bryant: What's your timeframe?
The Chairman: It's sort of when we hear all the witnesses. How many witnesses have we contacted? There are 80 or 90 witnesses. When we hear the witnesses it's up to the committee to sit down and try to go through the information we've received and to determine what it is we think we should do after listening to the witnesses' information.
Ms Bryant: Will there be any feedback process? Have you thought about that at all?
The Chairman: That's not usual at the committee stage. It's highly unusual. It's up to the committee. If we hear from 60 and 52 of them say to go forward, and if they make reasonable recommendations.... The committee will make the decision as to when they report the bill and how they report the bill. So I can't give you a timeframe. I only know that we've contacted close to 100 witnesses.
Ms Bryant: Okay. Perhaps once you've talked with those 100 people you can send them a note. You can send us out a note about what it is you're planning on doing, what your timeframes are, and that sort of thing. It's just to keep us apprised. It's important.
The Chairman: Okay.
Thank you very much.
Are there any other questions?
.1630
Our next witness is Mr. Wayne Davis, the executive director of the Newfoundland Shipowners Association.
Mr. Wayne Davis (Executive Director, Newfoundland Shipowners Association): The Newfoundland Shipowners Association has been around since just after Confederation. As some of the Newfoundland members would tell you, at one time there were some 40 very progressive companies back in the 1970s, and today the industry is in somewhat of a decline in Newfoundland and Labrador. Be that as it may, we have some people who are continuing to make a living in coastal trading, fish collecting, doing some trawling work.
Newfoundland, as I see it, is one of the last great frontiers for development as we head into the next century, with projects such as Voisey Bay and Hibernia - great, exciting possibilities in fisheries once we get through these short-term problems. Somebody on the other side of this chronological timeframe debate who's waiting on this new Canada Oceans Act would be saying God so loved the world that he didn't send the House of Commons standing committee.
I have consulted with a number of vessel owners around the table, with several marine lawyers and with people in the coastal zone management area, and the whole concept of this new Oceans Act is the proper one for Canada at this time. At the moment we see a lot of people depending on so-called international agreements and conventions.
As you well know, under the IMO UN group, we have the MARPOL convention on oil spill prevention and so on. We have the SOLAS Convention, Safety of Life at Sea. We have conventions on the international movement of dangerous goods and on the safety, training and certification of watchkeepers. We have all of these great international conventions.
A lot of people may sometimes be lulled into a sense of false security, because first of all an awful lot of countries are not even signatory to those various conventions. The last time I looked there was a country called Liberia that had an ocean-going merchant marine fleet of some 1,700 vessels.
So as we head into the next century, looking at the kind of tremendous development we're facing here in Newfoundland and Labrador, to proceed with the Oceans Act is the right concept.
Having said that, I came up with what is to me a simple analogy. When you eventually put this legislation on the table in the House of Commons, once it's approved and what have you, the table presumably will have four legs, as does this one here today.
As I see it, there will be four important legs on which this new Oceans Act will stand. It will either work or fail. First is the necessity for definition, second is consolidation, third of course is enforcement, and fourth is consultation. I'll make this very brief.
.1635
There must be clear definitions of what the legislation is, what the particular law will be and which regulations are to be enforced inside, say, the twelve-mile territorial zone, within the contiguous zone, out to 200 miles, and out to the edge of the continental shelf. This new act could be of great benefit in defining, articulating, enunciating and explaining what these particular nuances are.
After that, of course, is consolidation. Right now people in the marine field are running all the way from the Occupational Health and Safety Act under the Canada Labour Code to the Coasting Trade Act, the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act to find out something. To find a piece of relevant regulating material or legislation, you're talking right away to a battery of Philadelphia lawyers.
Apart from the act itself, which needs consolidating, obviously the strategies for implementation of the approaches to oceans management need consolidating. Whether it be in fisheries research, hydrography or the coasting trade, there's obviously a lot of room for consolidation of all this statutory authority and what have you.
Then, of course, it's no use having this great legislation and all these great technical, legal points properly spelled out in legislation if we don't have the enforcement capability. With the ships that have been taken over from the coast guard, the aircraft capability, the computer technology and what have you, presumably that capability is there.
There was some concern about the ships' safety division of the Canadian Coast Guard, which apparently stays with Transport Canada. I feel that's where it should be, because the people who are operating a vast fleet of ships such as DFO will be shouldn't be doing the inspections. That should be left somewhat removed, with the Department of Transport. I have no problem with that.
The last leg of this whole process would be the consultation. I'm not talking about this consultation process here. I'm saying once this legislation becomes official, once it's acclaimed and becomes law, there should be built-in consultation mechanisms. When we talk about things such as designating marine protected areas and controlling those protected areas, what kind of consultation will be afforded the population, the general public? Will people have an opportunity to participate, especially local people living in those particular areas?
I know in the past we saw some God-awful consultation on the part of Transport Canada, especially in the recent lighthouse consultations, where we had these highly paid American lobbyists come up here and try to sell us a bill of goods and give us no chance at all. I remember some of the consultations with respect to the Navigable Waters Protection Act over the years. Sometimes a tiny little ad appears, and it's almost as if they're saying, ``You need not bother wasting your time to come here and give us opinions''.
The consultation, enforcement, consolidation and definition would mean the success or failure of this particular legislation.
That's about what I have to say today. Thank you.
.1640
The Chairman: Wayne, I have a question for you dealing with marine protected areas. Clause 35 is on marine protected areas. What we heard a little bit earlier today, Wayne, from some other organizations that appeared is that they wanted the language with respect to clause 35 changed and strengthened.
Clause 35 on marine protected areas says:
- 35. The Governor in Council may make regulations
- (a) establishing marine protected areas in any area of the sea that forms part of the internal
waters of Canada, the territorial sea of Canada or the exclusive economic zone of Canada;
and
- (b) prescribing measures, not inconsistent with Canada's international obligations, for the
conservation and protection of fishery resources and their habitat in marine protected
areas.
- 36.(1) The Governor in Council may make orders exercising any power under section 35 on an
emergency basis where the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a fishery resource or its
habitat is or is likely to be at risk.
Mr. Davis: I was more concerned, as I saw here somewhere, that they would have to repeal or transfer a section of the wildlife back. I was thinking more of where they're establishing parks and what have you and sometimes not giving the people opportunity.
The Chairman: Okay. We've had some confusion on that ourselves. This act deals with marine protected areas, but there is another program over at the Department of Canadian Heritage for the establishment of marine parks.
We had some officials - I think we had the deputy minister - in to try to explain to us what the difference in process is and how we can ensure that there is the consultation when the Minister of Canadian Heritage designates a marine park and that if there is an active fishery that's part of it, the consultation takes place so that there's not a disruption. The assurance he gave us is that all this stuff would have to go through Order in Council, which would mean that the appropriate minister, such as the Minister of Fisheries, would have to be consulted. Hopefully that wouldn't happen.
It is a concern that has been raised by members of the committee as well. I think it's something we're going to have to consider to make sure we don't have the left hand doing something before those designations are made without the right hand having an opportunity to say hold it, I have a fishery in that area.
The marine park is in another bill. Actually, it's not even in a bill yet. There may be some enabling legislation coming forward.
Mr. Davis: I see a similar situation where it says the minister shall facilitate and coordinate the development of new marine environmental guidelines. Is there a consultation process built in there, or is that something that just comes from the department?
The Chairman: The officials are nodding to me that there is a consultative mechanism in place there. One of the things we've looked at as a committee in dealing with environmental protection under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is the provisions dealing with ocean dumping. They're still over with Environment, and it has been raised by some that perhaps those particular provisions should be incorporated into the Oceans Act. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Davis: Well, when I saw this about parts of the Canada Wildlife Act being transferred and other parts of various acts being repealed, I may have made the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that automatically some of these consultation processes that are there now might even be thrown out the window. You still have the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which I assume is under Transportation.
.1645
As vessel operators, I think we're more concerned with the implications for the Canada Shipping Act and the Labour Code and so on. I think I'll probably leave that to the lawyers and the other people who have made presentations, because we really haven't had as much in-depth analysis on that issue.
The Chairman: Okay.
Do other members of the committee have any comments?
I want to thank you for your presentation. We've heard what you've said and we appreciate your support and the comments you've made.
Mr. Davis: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thanks, Wayne.
We have one other witness, Mr. Frank Smith, who is the president of the Newfoundland Oceans Industries Association.
Good afternoon, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Frank Smith (President, Newfoundland Oceans Industries Association): Good afternoon.
What I'd like to do is preface with maybe a five- to ten-minute overview and then bring in the questions, if that's agreeable with everybody.
The Chairman: Fine.
Mr. Smith: Our association has been in existence for over 17 years and currently has over 280 corporate members, predominantly from the industrial sector, but we do have a small number of academic and institutional members.
The majority of our members, about 75%, are from Newfoundland. However, we do have members scattered across Canada, from B.C. to the maritime provinces. This is a reflection of how weak the oceans sector has become over the last five or ten years. Our association is the largest and strongest in Canada and yet represents predominantly Newfoundland groups. We're talking about a fairly weak industrial sector associated with the oceans, and that's part of the theme I want to bring out today.
We do represent about 25,000 employees, and companies such as Marystown Shipyard and MIL Davie in Quebec City are members of our association. Obviously, our industrial members rely on us for a large proportion of their revenues in the ocean-related area. As an association we take as our prime mandate the fostering, the sustainable growth, and the protection of the ocean sector.
At the moment three-quarters of our members are actively pursuing east coast oil and gas opportunities. That's presently the most viable option for revenue development, since we all hope to see our ocean-based sector grow and the east coast offshore-based oil and gas activity moved from the Hibernia project to an industry through the potential development of other prospects, including Terra Nova, Hebron, White Rose, and Sable Gas.
As I'm sure you're all aware, with the exception of the oil and gas sector, as I said, there's been very little activity or growth in the oceans area for the last five years. Then, with the announcement of the upcoming revised Oceans Act, our membership looked forward to a progressive, coordinated policy for the sustained development and protection of our oceans.
Quite frankly, the act meets little if any of our aspirations and is hence a major disappointment to us. We're not questioning the content of the act as it stands; it's valued and we have no problem with it. Where we have a major disappointment is that it's only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, I was a member of the National Marine Council for quite a few years and I can't see much difference between this act now and the one we were reviewing in 1988, which was the third time that came up for renewal.
I don't think we've moved substantially further. What we've done is legitimized and substantiated the status quo of 1988 in terms of our oceans policy. That's where we have a major disappointment, I would say.
While Fisheries and Oceans Canada has nominal coordinating responsibilities for the oceans, they've been continually swamped with a multitude of fisheries-related problems from coast to coast. Hence, the longer-term development of a clear, forward-thinking oceans policy has not been given the level of attention it deserves.
I think the Canada Oceans Act, which does reflect the preoccupation of the fishery and in effect focuses on legislating Canada's regulatory and management jurisdiction over the ocean, does not address the overall oceans sector and the need to develop those new sources and the associated industries.
.1650
In essence, the new act formalizes current practice under Canadian domestic law. It allows for legitimate penalties and reiterates the coordinating role of Fisheries and Oceans for the ocean sector. I think this was raised by other members just now.
Fisheries and Oceans does not really have an overview or an overall mandate for the oceans. They have it for sections, but other parts are under Transportation, Environment, Defence, you name it. The last time I looked at this a few years ago I think there were fourteen major departments in government. Now they've been squeezed a little bit over the last couple of years, but they have major budget responsibilities for the oceans.
This is where we're coming from. There's no focus. There's no overall policy or coordination for oceans and the long term. It's patchwork catch-up. We see this act as just another extension of that.
Many of us involved in the National Marine Council a few years ago felt at the time of the formation of the space agency that there was more justification for the formation of a Canadian oceans agency. In fact, we've had major lobbying towards cabinet and we wrote a briefing paper from the council, but I guess the glamour of space overtook it.
Such an agency for the oceans could combine the various budget responsibilities within government in order to develop a cohesive oceans policy and to effect savings at the same time, but the key thing is to provide an effective catalyst for the future development of our oceans. I do not believe that the structure and the nature of the beast at DFO and the dispersed responsibilities through government can ever provide that focused overall goal of a coordinated approach to ocean policy and development.
In fact, with the breakup of the U.S.S.R., Canada now has the longest coastline - you've heard all this before, I'm sure - and the largest continental shelf of any nation. Yet we are probably the least-focused major nation in terms of oceans policy and the least prepared in terms of understanding of our ocean resources and the implications of the Law of the Sea on their future.
As a nation we must get our act together if Canada is going to be at the forefront of oceans development with the associated rewards of economic spin-off to our poorer coastal regions, advanced technology, services developed for export and the sustainable economic development of our ocean resources.
In our view, Canada needs an agency or a department devoted to the sustainable exploitation of the ocean resources, whether it be oil and gas, mineral or food. It must be the focus point that can coordinate and control the various fiscal and physical aspects scattered throughout the federal government and by doing so maximize the return through coordinated goals for the sector.
In the current crude economic climate it must be an entity that is comfortable with working in partnership or alliance with both the resource development sector and the supporting industrial and institutional sectors, an entity that sets business goals and targets and is directly accountable for its performance.
Knowing that few sectors today have the physical resources to go it alone, the obvious solution for us all is in partnering or alliancing between government, private sector, associations, etc., if we are to generate a sufficient momentum to meet the goals of a variety of sustainable offshore industrial sectors. The identification and development of the resources based on our continental shelf in the oil and gas sector alone will require such a sustained joint effort.
No organization, company or government now has the financial capability to put this on. It has to be a joint effort.
In summary, our industry believes Canada needs more than an oceans act that primarily cleans up the domestic detail. We need a progressive, pragmatic act that will involve an entity through which to focus both industrial and government efforts for the full utilization of our ocean resources.
We believe such a focused, independent entity is the way to maximize the benefits for the Canadian people and to our economy through increased activity in some of the poorer coastal regions of Canada and increased exports from ocean-related technology.
Thank you.
The Chairman: From a critical viewpoint, I think we're going to ask you to flesh it out a bit.
I'm almost feeling schizophrenic after the last two days. We've had some people say we consult too much. Some say we haven't consulted enough. Some tell us to speed it up and some tell us to slow it down. Some tell us it's the best thing since sliced bread and others say it's basically a nice vessel but very empty. I guess we're at the hollow vessel scenario with you.
You mentioned the national marine agency and the paper from 1988. Can you fill us in a little about that process and what that document was? What should have evolved, in your view, from that 1988 document into a piece of legislation that you think would meet the requirements to have a progressive and dynamic act?
.1655
Mr. Smith: As I've said, and I think you must have run across this in your hearings today, I believe the responsibility for the oceans doesn't rest with DFO. They have a portion of it, and in terms of budget responsibility, it's probably less than a quarter. Let's face it: in government or in business, budget is power these days. That's the action area.
I would have anticipated that this act, in the six years since I saw the first draft, would have moved much more towards redefining the coordinating role of DFO, which is basically what it does. I've read the detail and it really didn't turn me on. So I wasn't prepared to go and discuss whether it should be ``may'' or ``shall''. I think that's immaterial. The act has missed the whole point of -
The Chairman: What should be the point?
Mr. Smith: The point should be an act that coordinates, pulls together and focuses all the departments' budgets and so on - call it an entity or what you like - and comes forward with a focused policy and a plan for the development of the oceans.
In other words, we're facing, over the next seven or eight years, the Law of the Sea, and as far as I know, less than a tenth of our continental shelf has been mapped. We have a technology sector in this country developed from the early offshore oil and gas days of the infamous NEP, the national energy program, with digital technology in the oceans. That died because all activity in the oceans died.
We need a focused plan that says we have to map and itemize the continental shelf. We're liable to lose part of the Law of the Sea if we don't. To do that we need to focus both industry and government and put forward a long-range business plan - which is what I would call it, from my background - to do just that. That picks up all the parts of the environment; I'm not saying it's small business. But it has to be a cohesive policy and plan.
Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): I know your comments have suggested this is still fragmented and other departments have a role. I want to read you clause 29 of the bill, which says:
- 29. The Minister, in collaboration with interested persons and bodies and with other ministers,
boards and agencies of the Government of Canada, shall lead and facilitate the development and
implementation of a national strategy for the management of the estuarine, coastal and marine
ecosystems in waters that form part of Canada or in which Canada has sovereign rights under
international law.
Mr. Smith: I don't think it's made any difference from what existed in 1988. In those days it was called the oceans coordinating committee, where all the deputy ministers of the fourteen government departments used to meet. I still read that as a coordinating role. I do not see that as a funded, total responsibility. He's leading it; he's coordinating it. I don't see that as doing it.
You know as well as I do what happens between departments in protection of territory and so on. I don't think it's clear enough or firm enough by any stretch of the imagination.
Mr. Dhaliwal: What this does is give one minister the fundamental responsibility for the management of the oceans.
I'm trying to figure this out, and maybe you can help me here. What would you recommend? What other acts or statutes would you recommend should form a part of this in order to give the minister more power? We've had some people saying the minister has too much power. Perhaps I want to see how we can empower the minister more. What would you do in this act that would empower the minister more to satisfy your organization's concerns?
.1700
Mr. Smith: Well, first, I was deliberately calling it an entity. In my view, it could well have been an oceans agency where there is an independent entity that focuses on the ocean, on the model of the space agency or NOAA in the United States.
I believe DFO is always going to have a major problem focusing on the overall ocean because the fishery is such a sensitive, emotional, economic area of their responsibility. Let's face it; that's been obvious in the last five years. I'm not saying it's wrong; I'm just saying maybe it has to be broken up and responsibilities made more defined and clearer.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Are you saying maybe there should have been a separate minister of oceans? I'm trying to find out -
Mr. Smith: I'm talking about something more like an oceans agency. For example, the space agency focuses the budget dollars on the space area. It runs the programs, it's responsible to the minister, but it's a separate agency, so it doesn't get clouded by the political pressure, which Fisheries has always done because of the number of votes and so on. That's kept clinical outside of the space agency. It gets on and does the work, develops the policy, and so on. That's what really matters.
Mr. Dhaliwal: So your fundamental problem is that it should not be in Fisheries and Oceans, but separated from Fisheries to avoid any conflict or any situations where there may be some overlap or political situations. You would like to see oceans under a separate minister or under a separate department not connected in any way with the fisheries. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Smith: Yes. I think that's true because of the emotion involved in Canada with the fisheries on the east and west coasts. It's become the only role of DFO. That's why we don't have an oceans policy or any real plan for looking at our resources in the continental shelf. I'm not saying they're wrong; I'm just saying maybe the structure is wrong. Their whole energy has been devoted to attacking the fisheries crises one after the other.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Putting that one situation aside in terms of the basic structure and the responsibilities of it, do you feel this goes a long way toward developing a concept and a principle of managing our oceans in a much more holistic way and toward a fundamental philosophy of managing an ecosystem?
Mr. Smith: I don't criticize what's been done; I'm criticizing what hasn't been done. In other words, the act as it stands is fine, but I don't think it goes remotely far enough for the long-term sustainable development of the ocean. We have to get into this structural thing of who's going to be responsible.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I understand where you're coming from and what you're saying, but we'll put that structural part of it aside for the moment. You don't have a problem other than the structural problem?
Mr. Smith: But that's so fundamental. It is the problem in the sense that you say fine, the policy.... I don't see that the minister is directly responsible; he's the leader and the coordinator of it, but he's not the driver of it, I think.
It's no different from what the oceans department is now. It's always been recognized as the leader and the coordinator of the oceans policy. I'm sure they did the same thing to the act. It doesn't say anything different from what the status quo basically is now. Why would we expect anything different?
Mr. Dhaliwal: What it does say is that before, a lot of the responsibilities were much more scattered and now one minister has clearly stated that he has the lead on oceans management to have a national strategy. Therefore, the emphasis is not that the responsibilities are divided, but that one minister has a clear responsibility for the oceans. I think there's a big difference between scattering those responsibilities and clearly stating that one minister has to take a lead role in developing a national strategy.
I don't want to continue further; I think I understand your concern.
The Chairman: Mrs. Payne.
Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hello, Frank. I want to tell you it's good to see you here today. I know about your background and that it's been a wide background in marine activity. I also know that in your present position you represent a large number of companies that are involved in the fishery and oil industry down there.
.1705
As I said, I'm glad to hear your comments. We are a little bit at odds, I guess I can say, and that's not unusual for us. We've been there before.
I assume what you're saying is you would have liked to have seen the act go a lot further in terms of finite responsibility and that the minister who has the responsibility right now should be able to have a lot more authority than what he does have at the moment.
Mr. Smith: Fundamentally what I'm saying is the act is a good act. I've no hang-up with it. That's why I didn't want to argue about semantics or wording or anything like that. In principle it's fine.
But basically all it does is solidify the status quo. It doesn't look to the future. You have to remember where this act springs from. It comes from the Northern Transportation Act, which was our only oceans act fifteen or twenty years ago. The plan was to develop an act specific to the oceans, and this is it, but it still only clears up a lot of what I call the internal administration details of government as it is today. I'm disappointed that after all this time that's all it is.
Mrs. Payne: Well, I guess at this point we'll just agree to disagree on this, because one of the other members has said almost all of the things I would have wanted to say.
It's good to see you here. Thanks very much.
Mr. Fewchuk (Selkirk - Red River): I have a question. You seem to be satisfied with the act. You're telling us everything's okay with the act. What is wrong? What is your problem? What are you searching for? Is there something wrong with the statute? If the act is okay, what do you want?
Mr. Smith: I thought I was being pretty clear. Maybe I'll just repeat it.
What I was saying was the act, as far as it's gone, is fine, but we're completely disappointed in that it's only gone as far as legitimizing the status quo. We were looking for a more progressive, forward-looking, policy-driven mechanism to push us into the 21st century.
We as an association believe Canada really has it made on the oceans, and it tends to be the last thing we give any priority to, other than the fishery, which is quite rightly a priority. On the oceans sector overall, other than the fishery, we never hear anything. We never see any efforts going into it.
We believe it's one of our future growth areas for the future of Canada, simply by the size of the coastlines, the large continental shelf, etc. I don't think I'm contradicting myself. I'm saying what you've done is fine, but it's nowhere near adequate. It just registers the status quo.
Mr. Fewchuk: I just thought you might break down exactly what you're looking for, in layman's language. What would you like to see?
Mr. Smith: I would like to see a drive towards an independent agency under the minister to drive the ocean policy and the overall effort towards sustainable economic development.
Our other model is the space agency, which is focused on the space program.
Mr. Fewchuk: Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith: You're welcome.
The Chairman: Frank, I like what you've said. We started off this whole process a few weeks ago, before things such as the referendum slowed us down.
It's difficult to be critical of a bill that does not have a lot to be critical of. This is a good step and it goes in the right direction; I agree with you. But I like your idea of something like an oceans agency, because my concern as a legislator is that this thing gets folded into Fisheries. You're right that in many respects it would ``statutize'' the status quo, although I agree with Mr. Dhaliwal that it does direct the minister more specifically than is currently the case.
Earlier today we had a presenter from the WWF clearly outline the vast resource that is the ocean, which is under Canadian control. It is a massive resource. One has to wonder, with the massiveness and the complexity of the resource, if indeed it should be part of a Department of ``Fisheries'' and Oceans. The reality is, with all the people out there who exploit the resource called fish, more than likely that's always going to take the priority in a department with dwindling resources.
.1710
I really like your suggestion of exploring the idea of an agency to focus the central policy-making, the implementation and the delivery of policies. I'm glad you had that idea. I've been trying to figure out what the sharp edge of the sword is here, and that may be it.
Mr. Smith: Thank you. That's what I was trying to say. I'm glad somebody understood what we were saying.
The Chairman: We used to have ICOD and things like that, but they didn't last very long. The previous governments decided they weren't worth the effort.
Mr. Smith: Yes.
The Chairman: It's unfortunate.
Thank you for that. If you have further ideas after you consider some of the questions and if there are more specifics you want to give to us, you can send them by fax or by mail to our clerk over the next few days so we can benefit from your experience in the field.
Mr. Smith: Thank you very much. I will do so.
The Chairman: Okay. Thanks very much.
That concludes this meeting. I want to thank everybody down in the great city of St. John's. I appreciate you taking the time to come in. If anybody wants to have further input, put it in a letter or in a fax, send it up, and we'll make sure it's distributed.
Thanks again, and good evening to St. John's, Newfoundland.