FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 8, 2001

• 1902

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): We'll call the meeting to order and welcome our first witnesses. As I think everyone in the room realizes, we are tonight dealing with the Oceans Act, in particular as it relates to oil and gas offshore.

Our first witness this evening is the regional director, oceans and environment branch, Faith Scattolon. You've two people with you, Joe Arbour, manager, oceans and coastal management division, and Sophie Bastien-Daigle, oceans biologist with the oceans and environment branch. I understand you've an opening statement, and then we'll go to questions. Welcome.

Ms. Faith Scattolon (Regional Director, Oceans and Environment Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the standing committee to talk about progress on implementation of the Oceans Act in the Maritimes region.

Last February I had the opportunity to appear before your committee with my colleague Matthew King, the assistant deputy minister of oceans from national headquarters, and he provided an overview of implementation of the act from a national perspective. But this evening I'd like to provide you with a regional perspective on the implementation of the Oceans Act and its programs. First, I'll describe some of the institutional changes within DFO Maritimes region and the capacity building that has accompanied them. Second, I'll speak about some of the specific initiatives occurring in the Maritimes and what we've been learning through this work.

Along with the new oceans and coastal management program being developed in DFO, there are also a number of other activities throughout the department that support the principles and approaches in the Oceans Act and are helping us evolve in our broadened oceans management role. These include strengthening and investing in our science programs, changes in fisheries management through the Atlantic fisheries policy review, and the development of sustainable aquaculture framework.

Institutionally, we have an oceans and environment branch to lead the department's expanded mandate for oceans management and to develop and implement regional and oceans and environmental programs and activities.

We are also responsible for discharging DFO's habitat management responsibilities. The department's national policy for the management of fish habitat and the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act provide effective and important tools for fish habitat conservation and protection, for habitat restoration, and for watershed management, all of which are important components of oceans and coastal management.

• 1905

We also conduct environmental assessment screenings for a variety of projects triggered under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We undertake important science support for understanding the physical, chemical, and biological impacts of human activities in our aquatic ecosystems.

Within our branch, our oceans and coastal management division is leading integrated oceans and coastal management initiatives, including the establishment of marine protected areas, and is working to operationalize the Oceans Act within our department and with partners and stakeholders. Given the short time I have to describe our work, I've chosen to focus on these oceans and coastal management activities.

We structured ourselves in three management units or ecozones, the Bay of Fundy, the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the Atlantic coast, including the Bras d'Or Lakes. We're geographically dispersed, with staff located at the three major DFO science institutes in the maritime provinces, the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, the biological station in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, and the Gulf Fisheries Centre in Moncton, with staff working throughout the region.

In order to develop effective oceans programs and projects, we work in collaboration with other DFO sectors, with federal and provincial government departments, first nations, industry, academia, and stakeholders throughout the community. We also provide a focal point for regional input into national policies and programs. We're supporting the broader changes that are occurring through DFO as a whole to support this shift to our expanded oceans mandate.

Our specific initiatives and activities are related to three main program elements outlined in the Oceans Act—integrated oceans and coastal management, marine protected areas, and marine environmental quality, as well as oceans education, which is crucial for the stewardship of our marine ecosystems. We are developing an integrated oceans and coastal management program to guide initiatives for estuarine, coastal, and offshore areas and to support the implementation of our other Oceans Act programs, such as marine protected areas and marine environmental quality.

Under the umbrella of the national integrated management framework, regionally based programs are being used to implement the Oceans Act and to gain experience throughout Canada. Concurrent development of a national policy framework with regional, sub-regional, and local programs and initiatives by DFO reinforces a pragmatic approach of learning by doing under the Oceans Act. The act sets a direction for the program, but it's important to realize that we don't have a road map or a recipe book for implementation.

Oceans and coastal management is based on the integrated management and sustainable development of Canada's oceans and their resources, the application of both an ecosystem and a precautionary approach in the conservation and management and use of marine resources, and the use of proactive, collaborative processes for planning and decision-making. Through these Oceans Act principles and approaches, oceans and coastal management is designed to achieve an effective, sustainable balance among environmental, social, and economic objectives in Canada's oceans areas.

Integrated oceans and coastal management will help us evolve from a fragmented, constituency-based approach to an integrated, comprehensive vision of how to manage our oceans. Our challenge is to capitalize on economic opportunities, while taking into account social and environmental goals, and to reflect the growing desire of Canadians to be involved in decision-making processes that affect environmental quality and their livelihood.

Within the Bay of Fundy, the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the Atlantic coast, including the Bras d'Or Lakes, we are leading and participating in a number of initiatives for estuarine, coastal, and offshore planning and management. The lessons learned from both coastal- and offshore-oriented efforts will be shared and applied in the development and implementation of a comprehensive and seamless Maritimes oceans and coastal management program.

In the Atlantic offshore we have the eastern Scotian Shelf integrated management initiative, which I'll refer to as ESSIM from now on. This initiative was announced by our minister in December of 1998. It had its birth in the work we did with other interests on the gully conservation strategy. That work recognized that while it is important that we take action to protect the gully, it's also important that we effectively manage activities occurring around the gully. ESSIM is being used to engage a range of parties, including federal and provincial government departments, first nations, industry sectors, non-government organizations, and academia, to develop an integrated planning process for this offshore management area.

• 1910

The eastern Scotian shelf is experiencing increasing levels of ocean use. These uses and activities include fisheries, offshore oil and gas, shipping, defence operations, submarine telecommunication cables, research and development, and recreation and tourism. It's also important to note that the area is becoming subject to a range of new activities, including developing fisheries and potential development of offshore minerals.

Our dialogue with ESSIM stakeholders and industry on potential governance processes and structures has emphasized the importance of a demonstrated commitment by government at all levels to integrated management. As a result, we've initiated a federal-provincial working group to carry out a joint work plan for ESSIM and to foster a sense of shared ownership within government at this stage of the process.

Key activities include completion of the following: an ecosystem description of the Scotian shelf to lay the foundation for our understanding of the ecology of the area; a public discussion paper on oceans management issues in the area; a federal-provincial regulatory overview or regulatory road map of the complex management processes operating in the area; a draft framework for an oceans management plan; and finally, proposed terms of reference for a governance structure.

The ESSIM working group is providing advice from the perspective of its client groups on how to structure and plan a multi-stakeholder ESSIM forum. The work carried out in this ESSIM initiative will have important applications for other Oceans Act initiatives in the region and will design and pilot processes and institutional mechanisms for integrated management and planning.

In the Atlantic offshore we're also involved with coastal planning initiatives in Chezzetcook, Guysborough County, and Halifax Harbour. These coastal planning initiatives, while using a similar approach, are all quite unique. It's reasonable to expect this, since coastal planning initiatives are so closely linked to the goals and objectives of coastal communities.

In Chezzetcook Harbour, we're working with the Chezzetcook Harbour Revitalization Association to address pollution issues in the watershed and inlet and support scientific research in clam management.

In Guysborough County, we are partners in a project with the local regional development authority, fishing organizations, and the Province of Nova Scotia. The objective of the project is to produce a comprehensive information support tool for the purpose of enhancing sustainable aquaculture development in Guysborough County.

The tool will be used to assist decision-makers with respect to aquaculture activities, contribute to the positive growth in the industry while reducing conflicts with other utilization and conservation initiatives, and to contribute to county and municipal planning activities in these coastal areas. These coastal planning initiatives will link up with the offshore ESSIM initiative as they all develop.

Other regional integrated management initiatives are ongoing in the Bras d'Or Lakes, Bay of Fundy, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In the Bras d'Or Lakes, we are collaborating with the other federal and provincial departments, first nations, and local non-government organizations towards the development of coastal integrated management plans, including marine environmental quality guidelines and future marine protected area components.

We are in year two of a comprehensive research program called Science for Integrated Management of the Bras d'Or Lakes. This is a multi-partner project to address issues and concerns identified during a 1999 public ecosystem workshop and to support a memorandum of understanding between the department and the Unama'ki Institute of Natural Resources.

In the Bay of Fundy we are working on an ecosystem overview in the identification and mapping of sensitive areas. Other federal and provincial departments, the Gulf of Maine Council, and stakeholder networks, such as the Bay of Fundy Marine Resource Centre, are working with DFO to gather knowledge and information and coordinate the input and participation of numerous organizations engaged in activities in the Bay of Fundy.

In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, we are collaborating with our colleagues and other DFO administrative regions on efforts to protect, sustain, and conserve one of the largest and most heavily utilized estuarine environments in Atlantic Canada. In addition to understanding the ecosystem and various human impacts, the focus is on a governance process and structure to deliver DFO's integrated management programs.

The involvement of five provinces, multiple federal agencies, first nations, diverse community and industry associations, and several DFO regions is a major challenge but essential to achieving a healthy, productive ecosystem that is environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable.

• 1915

At a more local level, in the southern gulf we have completed a study of significant marine habitat areas in eastern New Brunswick. We're partners with the Province of New Brunswick in a socio-economic study of oceans activities and we are now partnering with P.E.I. on a similar study of its oceans activities. We're also founding members and partners in the Southern Gulf Coalition, a broad-based group of government and non-government members focused on the sustainability of the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence.

The Maritimes region marine protected area program is a key component of broader integrated oceans and coastal management. As part of the national marine protected area policy objective for marine protected area system planning, we are in the process of developing a regional system of marine protected areas.

The first areas of interest in the Maritimes region were selected from sites where there was a significant level of interest already demonstrated, including community support, research interest, and environmental concerns. The three existing areas of interest represent a diversity of ecosystem types and management issues across the region.

For the Sable Gully, DFO and its partners are working to understand this unique canyon system to help in the development of conservation objectives and management options. In the period since the gully was identified as an area of interest we have undertaken extensive research to fill in the gaps noted in the 1997 gully science review. Through dialogue with DFO and other interests, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and Sable Offshore Energy Inc. have adopted measures to exclude the gully from oil and gas activities.

In the Musquash Estuary in the Bay of Fundy, the Musquash Marine Protection Committee has developed a draft conservation plan to protect one of the last remaining ecologically intact estuaries in the Bay of Fundy.

In Basin Head in eastern P.E.I., the Basin Head Lagoon Ecosystem Conservation Committee has developed conservation goals and management options to protect this coastal lagoon and its unique marine plant community.

With respect to the three marine protected areas of interest, we've largely completed the evaluation phase consistent with the national marine protected area policy and we are now in the process of drafting and finalizing management plans. Our ability to develop integrated oceans and coastal management plans and marine protected area plans must be based on a solid science foundation. We need to understand the fundamentals of marine ecosystems, our impacts on them and their various thresholds in order to develop effective ecosystem objectives and indicators, including marine environmental quality standards under the Oceans Act.

As an example, in support of the offshore ESSIM initiative we held a week-long workshop last June at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography. It brought together scientists from a variety of disciplines to describe the eastern Scotian Shelf ecosystem and its functions. We discussed proposed ecosystem objectives and indicators for the area, examined existing monitoring programs, and identified gaps in our knowledge.

This workshop underpinned the need to expand our thinking on ecosystem objectives beyond fisheries to take into account multiple ocean use and cumulative environmental effects. This approach has been adopted by DFO at a recent national workshop on ecosystem objectives.

To follow on from the regional workshop, we've been able to address some of the specific information and research gaps through strategic research funds that the department has allocated for high priority areas.

This June an ecosystem characterization workshop at BIO will attempt to define appropriate benthic classification models for the Scotian Shelf and the Bay of Fundy. These models are key to managing multiple ocean use and ultimately for developing oceans zoning scenarios.

We've also been able to access resources through other research programs. As an example, we are undertaking a corals research project this year, funded through the environmental studies research fund, which receives its funding through the levies on frontier lands held by oil and gas companies.

Some of our significant accomplishments in relation to the Oceans Act remain difficult to quantify, and I can think of no better example of this than the impact of education and outreach. This is an area where we've placed considerable effort. We've embraced educational opportunities, especially for students, our future ocean stewards.

• 1920

The Oceans 11 science curriculum, a joint project with the Nova Scotia Department of Education, has been widely praised by educators and is now being taught in about three-quarters of the high schools in Nova Scotia. And we continue to support post-secondary schools through collaborative research projects with a host of maritime institutions, including St. Francis Xavier, Dalhousie, University of Moncton, and University of New Brunswick.

In a few short years a considerable amount of experience has been gained. We've made it a priority to share the learning from our early efforts in oceans and coastal management. Our staff have made considerable contributions to professional practice, as evidenced by conference presentations, invited seminars, topical workshops, and peer review publications. I'm especially proud of my staff's lead role in the successful youth conference held during Coastal Zone Canada in Saint John, New Brunswick, last fall.

There's much more I could report on this evening, but in the interests of time, I'll finish by touching on the area of oil and gas, as this is of increasing significance to our region.

In light of the growing industry activity throughout the region, we're working to increase science and management capacity in relation to the oil and gas sector. We are working with Natural Resources Canada and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, as well as industry, to address a range of scientific questions pertaining to oil and gas exploration, development, and production.

I must emphasize that the government research conducted with industry support is scientifically independent and objective. At the same time, it has to be understood that this important research often cannot occur without the support of industry. We've developed a memorandum of understanding and work plan with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to establish a formal process through which we can work together to facilitate and promote the sound management of activities and measures related to exploration, development, and production of offshore oil and gas resources. It will offer DFO a more proactive opportunity to undertake and provide scientific advice relative to oil and gas development proposals. This will help to ensure the conservation of fisheries resources and protection of the marine environment.

Through the work plan we will conduct joint priority setting and planning, which will identify research needs in areas such as seismic, discharge of waste, and environmental effects monitoring. DFO will be conducting a regional advisory process—a RAP, to use the acronym—meeting in November of this year to assess the environmental impacts of oil and gas exploration around Cape Breton Island and identify gaps in our scientific knowledge. The meeting will produce a habitat status report, which is a public peer review document summarizing the findings of this regional advisory process meeting and workshop.

In closing, an important message I'd like to leave with you tonight is that much of what this oceans and coastal management program is about is focused on institutional design and building of capacity within DFO, with other levels of government, and the broader oceans community, to engage in the long-term planning and management processes that are required under the Oceans Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I and my colleagues would be happy to answer questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Faith.

I'd like to hold the questions to no more than five minutes. We have a heavy agenda, and we have a bus to catch tomorrow at seven.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much for your comprehensive presentation.

Towards the end of your presentation you said “to facilitate and promote the sound management of activities and measures related to exploration, development, and production of offshore oil and gas resources”. That seems to indicate a mission statement, in a sense. How did you get there? How did you get to that as being your policy, or initiative, or mandate?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: To a certain extent we draw the mission from the legislative authorities DFO has. We are responsible for fish habitat protection under the Fisheries Act, and although the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board is the regulator for oil and gas activities, we are still required to exercise our habitat mandate under the Fisheries Act.

• 1925

Additionally, the Oceans Act brings with it a lead role for DFO in facilitating oceans and coastal management, based on the principles of sustainable development and integrated management. So through that we derive our mission statement, if you will, of sound use of all oceans and coastal resources and working with other regulators and other partners in that regard.

Mr. John Duncan: You make reference to having largely completed the evaluation phase, consistent with the national MPA policy—I'm assuming that's marine protected areas.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Yes.

Mr. John Duncan: Does that make reference to MPAs established under DFO, or when you say national MPA policy are you also including in that basket MPAs established under other statutory instruments, such as those proposed by the heritage department?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: The specific reference in the statement that I made is to the national marine protected area policy under the Oceans Act specifically.

Mr. John Duncan: Do you foresee that this will be an area that needs to be addressed, having multiple opportunities for MPAs, where contradictory things can occur unless there is a national umbrella that includes them all?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: The Oceans Act itself recognizes the mandate of other jurisdictions in other protected area programs, such as those managed by the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada, as well as Parks Canada. It does direct DFO, with those other federal agencies, to coordinate a national system of marine protected areas. So certainly there is a recognition that we have to work with our colleague departments. In most places across the country there are on-the-ground mechanisms, where we work with our colleague departments at Environment Canada and Parks Canada. Regionally, we have an interdepartmental group that meets on a semi-regular basis to discuss the development of protected areas.

Mr. John Duncan: In your presentation you make reference to the Sable Gully.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Yes.

Mr. John Duncan: There is a suggestion from some quarters that the canyon ecosystem would be a prime candidate for marine protection area status, emanating not from DFO but from Heritage. There's a view that DFO has been very slow to respond to this ecosystem. Do you have a view on that possible initiative?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: The Heritage aspect of it? No. I'm aware that several years ago Parks Canada looked at the area and did contemplate dealing with it under their legislation. They came to the conclusion that they wouldn't proceed in that regard, and we worked with them and other agencies on the conservation strategy.

As to the speed with which the gully and marine protected area have been dealt with from a DFO perspective, I think we've been able—and we've been successful over the last couple of years—to largely deal with many of the issues through arrangements either with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board or through specific measures that we've been able to negotiate with our colleagues in fisheries management.

• 1930

That's not to say we don't need to move forward in terms of the formal designation of the marine protected area. As I mentioned in the introductory comments, that's essentially where we are now, having done the evaluation, identified the management issues, and started to move through the required regulatory process.

The Chair: Thank you, Faith and John.

Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Thank you. I would like to follow up on the question of Mr. Duncan because I am not quite sure I understand the answer.

You talk about zones of interest and marine protected areas. Sheila Copps talks about national marine conservation areas and the Department of the Environment of other types of areas along the coast.

With all of these, is there going to remain one inch of ocean accessible to fishers, once all your areas are in place? Will there remain an area reserved for fishing?

[English]

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Perhaps I can explain a little bit of the distinction between the three protected area programs you described.

Environment Canada, through the Canadian Wildlife Service, has a responsibility to deal with protected areas for migratory birds and wildlife. They are fairly specific in nature.

Parks Canada, under their legislation, deals with representative areas, areas that represent a certain type of natural feature.

The Oceans Act marine protected areas are very specific to reasons described in the Oceans Act. They include the protection of fisheries resources, protection of endangered species, and protection of unique habitat. I think it's important, when we're looking at consideration of areas, to understand the specific reasons for those areas.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the important way to proceed is through dialogue with our colleague departments at Environment Canada and Parks Canada, ensuring, as we bring proposals forward, we bring them through the appropriate piece of legislation and they're evaluated appropriately. We also, obviously, recognize that protected areas are an important use, if you will, of the marine area. There are also other important uses of the marine area, including fishing, aquaculture, and other activities.

The Chair: Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: A very short question: you mention somewhere in your brief that you work with five provinces. I imagine you are working with the four Atlantic provinces, i.e. the three Maritimes and Newfoundland. Would the fifth be Quebec? Do you undertake joint work in the Gulf and are you involved in any way with the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne?

[English]

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Yes. DFO is working with the province of Quebec. It is through the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne, not through the Maritimes office, with our colleagues in the Laurentian region of DFO.

The Chair: Thanks, Faith.

Before I go to Sarkis, Faith, several times you mentioned the dialogue process, in particular, with respect to the oil and gas decisions and exploration decisions that have to be made.

Who is the ultimate authority at the end of the day? DFO and Natural Resources Canada are involved, as well as Heritage Canada, in terms of marine protected areas. Is it the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board? Who has the ultimate authority to say yes or no at the end of the day? What's the backup position?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board is responsible for essentially all aspects of oil and gas management in the offshore area around Nova Scotia. It includes things ranging from occupational health and safety issues to the environmental management of issues associated with oil and gas development.

Under the acts that established the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, there are, however, certain decisions that are described as fundamental decisions. I don't have the legislation in front of me, so I can't list what they are. Those are key decisions that are referred to the federal Minister of Natural Resources and the provincial minister of the Nova Scotia Petroleum Directorate. On those fundamental decisions, those two ministers do have the ability to exercise a veto or a directive to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

• 1935

The Chair: Just so I'm clear, that's the Minister of Natural Resources—

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Natural Resources Canada.

The Chair: —whose objective is to enhance industry—

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Yes.

The Chair: —not protect the fisheries resource.

A voice: Oui.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: In terms of DFO's interaction with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, as I mentioned earlier, we are still responsible to exercise our responsibilities under the provisions of the Fisheries Act, including the habitat provisions.

In terms of specific development activities that the board would be considering, we are one of the key sources of information, particularly scientific information, as environmental assessments are done by the board and by the oil and gas industry, and we're consulted frequently in terms of potential environmental impacts, for information we have on fish distributions and habitat issues, and other scientific issues within our area of responsibility.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

Part of my question was asked by the chair. When you say fundamental decisions, Ms. Scattolon, can you give us a couple of examples of fundamental concerns?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: An example of a fundamental decision would be when the oil and gas industry is looking to explore in new areas, they will propose sites to the board. Perhaps they've done some seismic work or they have some geological information, and they will propose an area to the board. The board then will take that information and make a decision on whether or not to issue a public call for bids on that particular parcel. At that point, the Minister of Natural Resources Canada and the Petroleum Directorate are advised that the board is considering issuing a call for bids. The two ministers, federal and provincial, can, as I mentioned earlier, issue a directive or accept the position of the board.

So that would be a fundamental decision.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: [Technical Difficulty—Editor]...of the process.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Yes, but there are other points, further on in the process, that are also considered fundamental decisions. As I mentioned earlier, without the legislation in front of me I can't pick those out. But that's an obvious one, the point at which the board decides to issue a public call for bids.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay.

Oil and gas exploration, up to the 200-mile limit, is the Government of Canada's jurisdiction, am I right?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Under the legislation that's established, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, it's a joint federal-provincial shared jurisdiction.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: And does that apply to every province, or only Nova Scotia?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: It applies to the provinces where those joint federal-provincial arrangements have been established. On the east coast that's with Canada and Nova Scotia and with Canada and Newfoundland. There's a Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: If a company wants to go past the 200-mile limit, that would be international jurisdiction, international high seas. How do you control that? It would have an impact on our environment if they had a spill or whatever the case may be. Who decides how you would control the environmental danger that may occur by accident or something?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Canada does have certain rights in terms of the seabed even beyond the 200-mile limit. And in areas that are not covered by federal-provincial arrangements like these petroleum boards, the National Energy Board would come into play. So presumably, if we're looking at anything that's on the sea floor outside of 200 miles on our continental shelf, it would be the National Energy Board.

The Chair: Thank you, Sarkis and Faith.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much for coming with your colleagues here.

In your brief there is one sentence I find absolutely fascinating, because it's consistent with DFO.

Through dialogue with DFO and other interests, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and Sable Offshore Energy Inc. have adopted measures to exclude the Gully from oil and gas activities.

Now, in 1996, in Waverley, I attended Sable Offshore's briefing. They had a map—I've said this to you before—and Sable Island was blacked out with the letters NTZ underneath it, which said “No Touch Zone”. They said, “We are not going to go around Sable Island. We don't need to know what's under there or what's on there. We're leaving it alone.”

• 1940

Then a couple of years later, with Zoe Lucas, they changed the code of practice, wrote a new one, and ran seismic cables across that island to test the geographical information underneath. So why should we believe them when it comes to the gully?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Well, it's been our experience through the last three years that in all cases when we've discussed the gully with the board or when activity requests come forward for our review and we've expressed concerns about activities occurring too close to the gully, the board has complied with those requests.

As I mentioned earlier, that's not in the context of the gully marine protected area or the area of interest. I think it's positive that we've been able to reach these positions of agreement at this point. That's not to say, though, that we don't need to move forward with the formal legal designation of the gully as a marine protected area and the kind of enduring protection that sort of measure could bring.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: But, Faith, for the people of Nova Scotia, who know that the gully needs to be protected—and I'm trying to get my head around this—why are we so up on two companies, and an offshore petroleum board saying how grateful they are that they are not going to touch the gully? The DFO has ultimate responsibilities for the protection of fish and fish habitat. The gully, as we know, is home to 15 different whales and many other species, old sea coral, etc. Why wouldn't DFO tell them to pound sand—leave it alone; we're going to protect this area in perpetuity forever.

All the studies for the gully have been done before 1998; from 1998 on, very little has been done. They're waiting for someone with a pen in their hands to put in the legislation that it is a marine protected area forever—or for as long as ever lasts.

So when you say Sable Offshore Energy and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board—hallelujah—have said they're not going to touch it, there are a lot of people who don't believe that. The reason I say that, Faith, and I say this in all due respect, is that Corridor Resources off the Cabot block received a lease for seismic exploration off Cape Breton, and they received that lease without any environmental assessment being done before the lease was granted.

In fact, close to 45 leases have been granted without proper environmental assessments. What happens in this country is that the leases are granted, then the environmental assessments follow afterward, whereas in Norway and the U.K. it's the reverse. The environmental assessments are done first, then the lease is granted based on that assessment. Why does Canada do it in reverse?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: I'll answer the last part first, only to say in terms of how the legislation was written to establish the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the regulations that were written in terms of how they carry out their activities, unfortunately, I think I'm not the person to answer that. We'd really have to put those questions to Natural Resources Canada and the Nova Scotia Petroleum Directorate.

In terms of the gully, I would again repeat what I said earlier. I think the voluntary measures, the agreements, are positive. That's not to say, however, that we don't need to move forward in terms of the designation process. The Oceans Act is, believe it or not, a relatively new piece of legislation. The act came into being about four years ago, and we are just now starting to test how we move protected areas through the regulatory process, the types of regulations we can put in place, and the regulatory mechanisms we can use.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The last question—

The Chair: You're already out of time, Peter. I'm sorry. There were too many speeches there, and it takes away from your time for questions.

Mr. Lunney, Mr. Wappel, and then Gerald.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I'm a new member of the committee and this is my first time on the east coast, my questions may seem a little basic, but I'm just asking where we're at with exploration and production. There's some production off Newfoundland, I gather. Is there production around Cape Breton already, or exploration, and is there exploration just up and down? Where is it concentrated and how far are they in it now?

• 1945

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Most of the production on the offshore area in Nova Scotia is in relatively close proximity to the Sable Island area. There are lease areas on either side of Cape Breton, and as Mr. Stoffer mentioned, these lease blocks are issued by the board prior to any specific activity occurring in those lease blocks. Those activities have to be authorized by the board and are required to undergo an environmental assessment.

There are other lease blocks as well along the western edge of the Scotian Shelf, west of Sable Island, in deeper water along the edge of the shelf.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I have a point of clarification. The lease is granted first, then the assessment is done?

The Chair: That's correct, yes.

Mr. James Lunney: To finish this point, as far as the gully goes, there's a lot of loss around Sable Island and the gully itself. There's some exploration fairly close to that sensitive area. Is that correct?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: There are lease areas to both the east and the west of the gully. In developing the proposed boundaries, we tried to put in a buffer zone. We took into account the sensitive central area of the gully, which is the habitat of the marine mammals, and the core of the gully, but we also tried to establish a buffer area, to take into account that there would activities occurring outside that area.

Mr. James Lunney: Briefly, can you give us an indication of what size buffer area you're talking about? Are we talking about miles?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Yes. My colleague Joe Arbour may have the specifics on the size of the area, but I think we're talking about something in the order of 80 by 50 kilometres.

Is that right, Joe, or is that too big?

Mr. Joe Arbour (Manager, Oceans and Coastal Management Division, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I think that's the right range.

The Chair: Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): I know you didn't have an opportunity, because of the timeframe, to expand on a lot of your points, but I noticed that you were supposed to be working on the development of a sustainable aquaculture framework. I wonder if you have completed your work on that framework, and if so, if you could describe what that framework is for sustainable acquaculture.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: The comment I made about sustainable acquaculture was really to draw in some of the other initiatives that are occurring within DFO. My group does have a role to play in that. We screen environmental assessments associated with acquaculture development.

Very briefly, the department has been able to commit substantial resources over the next several years focused on science in support of acquaculture, including environmental interactions, as well as working with industry on technologies that are more environmentally friendly. We've been able to put resources into our habitat management programs so that we can put more focus on the environmental assessments and our participation in screening of environmental assessments associated with acquaculture.

Those are really the areas that are primarily focused on my programs, although there are other aspects of DFO involved in the development of that acquaculture framework.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think a lot of the questions have been asked, but in the five minutes allotted to me, I'll try to get a few more out here.

Two questions that were asked here raised other questions. One of them was asked by one of my colleagues about Heritage Canada, and I would like a short answer if I can get it, because I'll take a lot of time with my question. As I understand it, Heritage Canada would be there to designate a marine park, not necessarily a marine protected area.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: It would be a national marine conservation area, which is meant to be representative of a type of ecosystem.

• 1950

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And would really be a marine park. We've looked at this before. The other issue that comes up was raised by my colleague here from the Bloc, Madam Tremblay, and that is fishing. To my understanding, you're allowed to fish in marine protected areas as long as you don't use destructive gear. So you could set lobster traps, for instance, in a marine protected area, you could set crab traps. You can't use a gear type that destroys the bottom or targets a protected species.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Is that your question?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's the question.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Fishing could be permitted in a marine protected area. Under the Oceans Act, under the legislation, there are no activities that are explicitly excluded. The management plan that would be put in place for a marine protected area would be specific concerning the reason you have a marine protected area. So you could have fishing activities in a marine protected area.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Another question comes out of that. There seems to be a lot of interest in the gully and in some other areas in the offshore that are unique and home to some endangered animals, whether they're corals or bottlenose whales. But there seems to be little interest in marine protected areas. You did name a few estuaries, which are extremely important, but there are spawning grounds, grounds where juvenile fish are raised, whether those are haddock or cod or whatever species. Have you been looking at that aspect of it?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Yes, we have, and on that point I'd ask Ms. Bastien-Daigle to very briefly describe the study we did on marine habitats in the southern gulf.

[Translation]

Mrs. Sophie Bastien-Daigle (Oceans biologist, Oceans and Environment Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Yes, to answer you question, there is indeed lots of interest in protecting areas that are rich in resources like those you mention, like spawning grounds, migration areas, places that are essential for certain habitats.

We completed a study last year in Eastern New Brunswick. It established an inventory of essential habitats in critical areas like these. It gave us a list of 30 areas considered very important for marine resources.

I will just mention that this study is similar to another one that has been done in the Laurentian region. Phase 2 of this study started this year. So we wanted to gather the same type of information for that part of the Gulf next to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

To carry out these studies we use mapping a lot. By overlaying maps of the different zones of interest, of critical habitats, we can determine which areas are the most active. This information will allow us to plan for the long term and to establish, maybe not full-blown marine protected areas but different types of protection of these species. It is an ecosystemic approach.

[English]

The Chair: A very short one, Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Just two.

First, can we get that information? That would be the first question.

[Translation]

Mrs. Sophie Bastien-Daigle: Yes, it is possible.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Finally, in the issue over oil and gas I think we tend to take too much of an adversarial approach. From what I'm hearing from you, you're trying to get away from that, a little bit at least, and look at the fact that there's going to be some oil and gas exploration. There probably are areas that should be excluded from that. We need to take a serious look at it. Are you trying to dovetail the two industries? Because I don't think here's been enough of that done. They're going to have to coexist for a while.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Our approach is really to ground the issue as far as possible in good science. I mentioned in my opening comments that we are trying, as part of our eastern Scotian Shelf integrated management initiative, to have a science workshop this June to look at benthic or bottom habitat on the Scotian Shelf. What are the various habitat types? What are the types that are perhaps incompatible with benthic disturbance, with disturbance of the bottom? Are there areas other than the gully that we should look at setting aside?

• 1955

We need to keep in mind that there are already areas on the Scotian Shelf that are, for example, excluded from fishing activity. There's a large area on Western and Sable Bank that's been closed for some years now.

So I think the key is to ground as much of this as we can in good science.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Faith, and your colleagues. I enjoyed your presentation.

[Translation]

I want to especially welcome Sophie. I am happy to see you here before the Standing Committee.

[English]

Faith, I know that this perhaps is more of a fisheries management issue, and you and your staff I think have done important and impressive work in science. I congratulate you. Commercial fishermen—the ones that I talked to—are obviously worried about the eventual scenario of some environmental problem, and they've turned to compensation.

If exploration goes ahead where there is some damage to fishing grounds, or worse yet some environmental damage, what process will be in place to see that these fishermen don't have their livelihood damaged or destroyed, perhaps by no fault of a particular person? What process does the department envisage to address this issue and to reassure them?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: In terms of specific compensation agreements, there are agreements in place now in other areas where there is oil and gas activity on the Scotian Shelf. Coming back to I think the reference that Mr. Easter made earlier, ultimately the responsibility for oil and gas hydrocarbon development rests with Natural Resources Canada. So it would be through the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and with the operators that those types of compensation agreements would be developed.

In the development of the compensation agreements on the Scotian Shelf, DFO did play an important role in terms of identifying the resources that could be at risk in working with both the fishing industry and the oil and gas industry, and assigning some value to those resources, and working with them on the development of the compensation plans. Ultimately those agreements would have to be between the fishing industry and the oil and gas industry.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: I appreciate that Natural Resources Canada and the provincial government may have a lead role in the ultimate dispensing of money. But surely the Fisheries and Oceans has a role to protect commercial fishermen from being able to earn their living. What I hear you saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that DFO will take a strong advocacy position on behalf of commercial fishermen in making sure that their interests in an ultimate compensation scheme are protected.

I don't think Natural Resources Canada is interested in compensating an inshore fisherman. I think DFO is going to have to make sure that those interests are advanced and protected. Is that your sense as well?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Well, certainly we are the experts to a great extent in terms of the value of fisheries resources and the potential impacts of oil and gas activity on fisheries resources. So we would have an important role to play in those discussions.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

We'll take a few more very quick questions, and then we'll move to the next witness.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I would just like to go back to oil and gas. Nobody likes reinventing the wheel, so with regard to all of the work that DFO has done on this coast with the development of oil and gas, were the major lessons learned from Norway or Alaska? What was the original model from which your early work was derived?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Do you mean the research?

• 2000

Mr. John Duncan: Well, you had to have a starting place. Obviously other jurisdictions in the world had an active and operating offshore oil and gas industry, so I'm assuming that you would have gone to those locations to learn whatever you could. I'm just wondering which areas were the primary motivators in developing your direction.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: In terms of the research programs we have, looking at environmental impacts of oil and gas, many of the people who do that work at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography work with people from countries around the world—from the North Sea and Norway and Great Britain, as well as the U.S. So I think within the international science community there's a great deal of dialogue.

On the management side of things, and again getting back to some of Mr. Stoffer's comments about the process, I think there is a lot we can learn about the kind of process that's followed in terms of issuance of leases and authorization of activities. I also think that both the oil and gas industry and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board are interested in learning from those other jurisdictions.

Frankly, we're somewhat new to the management aspect of this in terms of the authorization of activities, but we're also looking to some of the examples that Mr. Stoffer had mentioned in terms of how things are done in Norway.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Arbour, regarding your comment on the practical differential for oil and gas drilling between a DFO marine protected status and what's contemplated by other marine protected areas, is there a practical difference to the oil and gas sector?

One of the things I'm thinking about, for example, is angle drilling from outside the MPA. That would be one obvious question to ask. Is that allowed or not under the various regimes?

Mr. Joe Arbour: We're really looking very much at setting some standards within marine protected areas. We'd call them ecosystem objectives. We'd set some parameters in terms of the type of disturbance or impact we would accept. As long as they will not impact or disturb those particular ecosystem elements, activities can occur.

At this point, we haven't yet set the specific types of regulations that might play within a marine protected area. We haven't seen that demonstrated, but it's quite feasible down the road that we can consider that if we set the buffer and define the marine protected area, there may yet be subsurface resources under that marine protected area that could be accessed indirectly by directional drilling. I'm not saying that we have an example where that could be or couldn't be, but it's certainly part of the scenario that could spin out.

Again, all of that would depend on whether that sort of activity could occur without impacting upon the ecosystem elements that we're protecting within that marine protected area. It's a scenario that's out there, but it's not one we've had experience with.

The Chair: Last question, John.

Mr. John Duncan: Just as a clarification, would that be allowed, for example, under a marine protected area issued by...? Is it Parks Canada that has marine protected areas as well?

Mr. Joe Arbour: Heritage Canada, Parks Canada, yes, because I think they're evolving their notion of what a marine conservation area would be. Now, under the national parks, on a terrestrial basis, they acquire the subsurface rights.

• 2005

But I'll be honest; I don't know whether in developing marine conservation areas they were looking at acquiring subsurface rights as well. There are a fairly broad range of issues related to just who owns subsurface rights and who can access them.

Mr. John Duncan: Just as a comment, there are more questions than answers. There is a lack of clarity in many respects. One of my major concerns is that we don't really know what we're dealing with, and we have enabling legislation that leaves it all very vague.

Mr. Joe Arbour: As Faith has said, we're early in the evolution of this program. We're in the very early days and working really diligently in terms of trying to ferret out some of the answers and the clarity to some of these questions, which do get wrapped up in some fairly complicated legal considerations.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Arbour, you frightened us a bit when you said that the directional drilling may in the unforeseeable future be allowed under a marine protected area. I find that extremely frightening, and if the people of Nova Scotia knew that was happening, I'm sure they'd have some opinion on that as well.

But 5.7 million hectares of basic area off the coast of Nova Scotia has been licensed for oil and gas exploration. How many hectares of water have been designated a marine protected area?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: As we discussed earlier, there are no designated marine protected areas. There are areas for which certain activities are excluded at this point, including the gully, as well as some areas up on Western and Sable Bank. But there are no designated marine protected areas at this point.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I'm not here to say that oil and gas should go away. All I'm saying—I've heard this from many people—is that DFO's primary responsibility, the reason they have $1 billion budget from Canadian taxpayers, is the protection of fish and fish habitat. To pass the buck onto Canadian Heritage or Natural Resources Canada or somewhere else is simply unacceptable to the people, especially of this province. All they want to know is whether or not the people we have working in these departments are going to protect the fish and the fish habitat.

To say, as my colleague Mr. LeBlanc says, that if something happens to commercial fishermen, someone is going to have to compensate them.... Well, we should never be asking those types of questions.

So my recommendation is, if and when the marine protected areas come about, that you tell them quite clearly, no directional drilling. Now there's a big concern about directional drilling under the Great Lakes. There's huge concern about what's going on over there. You can use that as an example for what's happening here.

Secondly, and I say this with all due respect, you have to include those people who have grave concerns, especially the coastal communities and aboriginal communities, when it comes to the granting of these licences. To say that it's now the responsibility of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board is simply not good enough. It is DFO's mandate to protect fish and fish habitat.

The Chair: Peter, do you have a question?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Will you consider those requests by the environmental groups in the coastal communities to review the licensing process? It's already been done here. Canada-Nova Scotia recently announced a public review of these licences. Will you then ask for a review of more of those licensed projects before more are granted? All the people are asking for is a precautionary approach.

The Chair: Faith.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: As I mentioned in the statement, we have a memorandum of understanding, that we've just taken to the concluding phase now with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. One of the issues we've negotiated with the board that we want to specifically address is the process for public participation.

• 2010

Now, as I mentioned earlier, the board has certain legislative issues that it deals with in terms of conducting its activities, but we also feel that we can play a role in ensuring that coastal communities learn more about how the board operates, that there is perhaps greater opportunity for public participation as activities are reviewed. So it's certainly something we intend to deal with, from an oceans management perspective, with our colleagues at the board.

The Chair: Peter, do I take it you'd be interested in the committee inviting the chair of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Absolutely.

The Chair: Then we'll ask the clerk to start to arrange that.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, I think that would be good, and Natural Resources as well.

The Chair: Madam Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, the more we talk about these marine protected areas the more I get concerned, because I cannot see where we are going with all of this.

I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Heritage up to now and I have to admit my lack of familiarity with Fisheries and Oceans. We are told that you are going to establish marine protected areas and that this will be done in consultation with coastal communities.

So you carried out reviews and studies to determine where they could be created. You went to Newfoundland and you wanted to designate one in the very area where Newfoundlanders wanted to establish an aquaculture farm. So you decided not to create one in that spot. But you still want protected areas. As soon as Canadian Heritage will take over, all activities will cease because once Heritage Canada comes along they dismantle everything. They want to protect the environment and culture, but they demolish the houses, move out all residents. They take out everything.

Only in Jasper are people allowed to live in the park. All the other parks have no residents. Next, they dress up people in the summer to show tourists what it was like when people lived there. But you cannot ask fishers to act like fishers earning a living once you have established your protection areas everywhere. This is what concerns me.

There are migratory birds, endangered species, protection of the environment, zones of interest, marine protected areas, national marine conservation areas. Is there going to be anything left of the coast? I am really, really concerned. I wonder what is going to be left.

You may not have an answer, but you should talk about this at your coordination meetings.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Scattolon.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: I'll use the Eastern Scotian Shelf as an example, because that is, in this part of the country, the main offshore area we're dealing with. Certainly what we've attempted to do, right from the outset, is to have our provincial and federal colleagues there with us as we sort through the issues from a management perspective in that area. So our protection issues, from a DFO perspective, can be brought forward, and Parks Canada and Environment Canada are there at the table with us as part of that initiative.

In terms of parks, and again I'll defer to my colleague Mr. Arbour on this, my understanding is that of the parks or the heritage areas that are contemplated across the country, the sole area they've been considering in the past in this part of the country, the Maritimes, is the gully. We're now dealing with that through the marine protected area process.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: There are two in the estuary, and one in the Gulf of St-Lawrence. These are not far from here.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Tremblay.

A short question, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm still a little uncertain of the activity allowed, and I'm not sure that it has been clarified. It certainly hasn't been disputed. Madam Tremblay just said that in a heritage site there would be no activity allowed. My understanding is that in a marine protected area there is activity allowed as long as that activity is not destructive to the bottom or to the animals that live there.

I guess the only marine park perhaps in Canada is.... Is there one in B.C.?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: There is one in Lac-Saint-Jean, on the other side of the St-Lawrence River.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And in the Saguenay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes. Just go and look at what is happening there.

• 2015

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So can we have clarification?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: In a marine protected area under the Oceans Act there could be a multitude of activity. So as Mr. Arbour said, a marine protected area would be established with certain standards in place. If an activity can meet those standards, then it could be conducted in a marine protected area under the Oceans Act.

The Chair: Okay, Gerald.

Mr. Lunney has a short one as well. Go ahead.

Mr. James Lunney: I think we have to seriously consider what she has just said. If you're carrying out an activity that doesn't endanger the environment or the species of animals that live there, then you have to ask yourself why you wouldn't carry that out.

The other issue that hasn't come up is seismic. Mr. Stoffer just mentioned briefly in passing the seismic that occurred on Sable Island in 1996. I wasn't aware of that. I don't understand why they would have occurred to begin with. My understanding is that Sable Island is an area protected by the Province of Nova Scotia. And there's a jurisdictional row whether the feds have it or the province has it.

There were wells drilled on Sable Island. The original exploration in the offshore occurred on land-based rigs on Sable Island in the seventies. There were wells drilled all around Sable Island, including directional wells on the end of Sable.

I don't know why that would have occurred, and I just question, did it?

The Chair: As Mr. Duncan mentioned to me, Gerald, under the marine protected areas, the point is you basically reverse the onus; you exclude certain activities unless they are otherwise stated. Right?

Mr. John Duncan: Fishing is closed unless you say it's open, whereas in a non-marine protected area, fishing is open unless you say it's closed.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: The Oceans Act describes several reasons for a protected area: protection of fish, habitat, endangered species. If you were trying to protect endangered species, for example, you would have certain standards that you would need to protect those endangered species. It might be noise levels. And if an activity can be conducted so that noise levels don't exceed the threshold in the management plan, then an activity could occur. So it's not directed at a specific activity, but rather at that activity meeting a certain standard or being able to be conducted in a certain way.

The Chair: Thank you, Faith.

Last point, Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Your title is regional director of the oceans and environmental branch. As far as the impact on the environment is concerned, is there drilling going on or just seismic testing in these areas? There is an impact. Certainly there would be with any drilling, as there's always a certain amount of leakage when you start disturbing the floor in that way. Can you comment on the kinds of changes we might see there?

Recently we saw images of a platform out of kilter after a storm. Where was that? It was off Brazil. There was some trouble up in the North Sea with some very significant spills. I presume there have been advances in drilling offshore and so on and platform stabilization. Can you comment on the risk of catastrophe management? And even on the drilling and the exploration, what kind of impacts are these having?

There's a good one for a last question.

The Chair: You might want to save that for the Nova Scotia Petroleum Board.

Anyway, go ahead, Faith, however you may.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: In terms of the state of the knowledge, a great deal of the research being done now, related to oil and gas activity, is directed at not only the specific impacts of the activity but also the impacts of the environment on operations.

Those are some of the things that get at the issues you just raised in terms of how storm events or ocean currents or the general oceanographic features could impact in a particular area. Those would be pieces of information that would guide decisions about whether or not platforms can go into certain areas and actually be put in place in a way that minimizes any potential risk to the environment.

• 2020

In terms of overall impacts of oil and gas activities, there's an extensive body of research—a plethora of research papers—that talks about those potential impacts, and we could certainly arrange to have perhaps a synopsis of some of those provided to the committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Faith, and people with you. This science conference that you talked about—is that open or closed?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: It will be an open process.

The Chair: Can you notify us when it is, just in case some members of the committee might want to attend that?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We did spend a fair bit of time with this first witness, but you are the area of responsibility.

Peter, what were you going to say?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: If we had a marine protected area where humans were out of bounds, where there was no human activity whatsoever, that would be really nice.

The Chair: Peter, the clerk suggested to me up here earlier, when Faith mentioned—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just leave the humans out of it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

The next witness will be Albert Marshall.

I understand, Albert, that you have a six-hour drive following your presentation, so we'll go to you next. Welcome.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You know, Mr. Chair, it should be noted that, in 30 years of activity in oil drilling on the east coast, there's not been one accident. There's not been a spill; there's not been an explosion; there's not been a rig sunk on-site. There has been in transit, but...it should be noted.

The Chair: So noted, Gerald.

The floor is yours, Mr. Marshall, and welcome. I know you've had a long drive and have a long way to return home, but thank you very much for coming.

Mr. Albert Marshall (Spokesperson, Eskasoni Fish and Wildlife): First of all, on behalf of Eskasoni Fish and Wildlife, I would like to extend my appreciation for being allowed to come and be part and parcel of your deliberations.

I would like to start off by saying this: May the spirit of our good intentions during these discussions lead us into the realization of accepting our inherent responsibilities to preserve, to protect, and to ensure that this beautiful creation be there for future generations.

I would like to start off by sharing with you some of our thoughts. On a bright, sunny afternoon in June 1955, the Canso Causeway opened to the general public. There were hundreds of people on both sides of the strait, applauding a strait known as Twi'knek in Mi'kmaq. The noise of the pomp and festivities was deafening.

Among the groups were Mi'kmaq, huddled together to watch the proceedings. In a small group stood a Mi'kmaq man about 45 years of age. He wasn't applauding but instead was very introspective as he watched along with the others. Finally he spoke, and the words he spoke had no meaning at the time. But because our teachings came from each other and from elders, someone took a very serious perspective of this man's predictions and revealed that, only last year, when the elder met the Eskasoni Fish and Wildlife talking circle, this man, who is now 70 years of age, recalled those words spoken by the elder on that bright June afternoon of 1955.

• 2025

He said, “I heard the elder say, in 50 years the district of the Mi'kmaw will not have any eagles. There will be no eagles because a causeway has crossed the main artery for eagle migration.” The elder who spoke these words is now almost 90 years of age and lives in Waycobah, Inverness County.

I'd like to share some of our way of looking at the environment. Aboriginal science, and the world view and philosophies from which it's derived, provide models, lessons, meanings, and the possibility of what it means to participate with rather than attempting to dominate nature. Our lessons are carefully delivered by our elders, since they have learned through many years of exploring, searching, and conclusions.

The native communities mirror the natural order of nature through its form of organization, and its focus on knowing and cultivating key social and ecological relationships. For instance, the Mi'kmaw language is verb-based, and it's expressed as one's relationship to the world around him.

In a native language, “coming to know” is the best translation for “education”. Coming to know is coming to understand a process, a quest for knowledge and understanding. There is a profound tradition involved with these understandings that encompasses harmony, compassion, hunting, fishing, planting, technology, spirits, song, dance, colours, numbers, cycles, balance, death, and renewal. These are the understandings that we as Mi'kmaqs would like to share with the government, the companies, the organizations, and the lawmakers, both of the sea and land, because we feel there's a great deal of misunderstanding between western, objectified science and the Mi'kmaq traditional knowledge.

In the Mi'kmaq concept, the roles of fishing and hunting are passed down by the elders in a philosophy of utilizing the seven-year cycles. The seven-year cycle is a period in which random fishing and hunting is permitted. At the expiration of this period, the entire community is at liberty to hunt and fish in a designated area. Every year a new area is allotted to clans or families until all of the seven designated spots have been utilized, and then the cycle begins again. No one is ever permitted to return to these vacated spots to hunt or fish or disturb ecology.

In conclusion, we as Mi'kmaqs are not demanding or imposing that our philosophies have to be entailed in the management of our fisheries or the handbooks of the DFO regulations. We are simply offering our insights, which have been in place for generations, to assist in a quest for diversity and environmental stability.

We are being faced with the global crisis of relationship with the natural world and with each other. We must entertain ethical participation with nature in order for her humans to enjoy and experience a sustainable future as we enter a new 21st century.

As I have stated, I represent Eskasoni Fish and Wildlife. Eskasoni Fish and Wildlife is a multi-faceted initiative in which our main objective is to foster community-based management and also to convey to our young people that there is a strong possibility that we can include economics and conservation in our present-day economic development endeavours. Because, as we are all very much aware, 70% of our native population is comprised of people younger than 30 years of age. With that, there is a great urgency from the elders as to how this knowledge should be passed on for the future generations, how this knowledge should be encompassed in every aspect of their lives, and how to live in peace, balance, and harmony with nature.

But all this is due to the provisions of the resources we live around. Our relationship with this body of water dates back thousands and thousands of years. Lakes have been maintained in pristine conditions. By maintaining the lake systems in these conditions, they have been supportive of fish, fowl, and wildlife, which provide sustenance not only to the Mi'kmaq people, but also to the Europeans who arrived centuries later.

• 2030

Times have changed. Although we are not completely dependent upon the lakes any more, it's a source of our food and contributes to our economic well-being. The history and the attachment to Bras D'Or Lake and the adjacent waters, as I have stated, goes back thousands and thousands of years. We feel specific responsibility to do all within our power to protect it from the adverse actions of man.

With that, I think we should also include that, to our information, out of the 17 major fisheries around the world, 14 have collapsed or are on the verge of collapsing. As common sense, then, all Canadian waters should be placed on this protective status until enough studies and data are collected to ensure that we do not cause any more adverse effects, whether through seismic testing or through exploration of any kind, and especially with the influx of new and bigger vessels that will have to be relied on in these exploration areas.

Thank you very much.

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

Peter, do you want to start the questions, and then we'll go back up the line?

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

For the committee's clarification, Eskasoni is in Cape Breton. Correct?

Mr. Albert Marshall: Eskasoni is in Cape Breton.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Very good. I knew that, but I wanted to—

Mr. Albert Marshall: Eskasoni is where I believe most of our native people are congregated—approximately 6,000. Eskasoni is the biggest reserve east of Kahnawake.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. When it comes to aquaculture siting, when it comes to areas of seismic drilling for oil and gas exploration, and so on, are the Eskasoni people part of the initial process and consultation, or are you brought in after the decisions are made?

Mr. Albert Marshall: We are the original inhabitants of this great province, but to date, we haven't had the opportunities or the privilege to be included in any of these processes. It's always after the fact that we are brought in, or after some bureaucrat or politicians include us in their presentations, that they are working closely and in conjunction with the first nations community. I would advise you here and now that this is not the case. Our namesake has always been used to enhance their initiatives.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You mentioned that 70% of the people on your reserve—

Mr. Albert Marshall: In all native communities across this country, 70% of the people are under 30 years of age.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: What are those young people telling you about their future on those lands in terms of accessing the resources?

Mr. Albert Marshall: As part of our initiative, it is sad to say that we now have to re-educate our young people as to how they can live in harmony with their surroundings. In other words, in a lot of cases, we have to somehow deprogram them because they have been somewhat contaminated with this hoarding and gathering of goods for personal gain.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: How do you think that's going to go?

Mr. Albert Marshall: Well, unless—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You mention deprogramming—

Mr. Albert Marshall: Yes, we're in the process, and we have to say, in most cases, with little or no resources to do this. We have to now include young people in all our operations, in all our thinking, because they are in fact our future generations.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Are you doing this process in isolation, or are you working with other groups, for example, environmental groups, religious groups, coastal communities, provincial or municipal...?

• 2035

Mr. Albert Marshall: We are now in a process in which the task before us is so great and we are so outnumbered, because our population is so small, that our endeavour now is to convince the environmentalists, the naturalists, the fishermen, the businesses, the government, as to how we can come together as one and really plan how much our delicate system could sustain for future generations. That is a big order and a big task, but we approach it in that light. I don't foresee the benefits holding on forever.

I think history is repeating itself here, of the explorers of years past. When the European countries were exhausting their renewable resources, they encouraged these explorers to venture out into the unknown, which is now part of Canada, for them to exploit our resources and these people. Now the government is encouraging more explorers to venture out into outer space, because they've screwed up our planet, and they're now waiting to screw up the other planets.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer and Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Mr. Marshall, I was interested in a comment you made about traditional resource management. You talked about some seven sites being assigned, and then after that's done, no one is allowed to return to those sites. Could you just expand on that or explain what you meant by that?

Mr. Albert Marshall: Those seven sites, by the way, encompass Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, P.E.I., and Newfoundland. Within those geographic areas, seven districts were subdivided. The main purpose for those seven districts was for conservation, to ensure that none of those areas would ever be overharvested, overfished, or overused, that they would be given ample time to refurbish, or whatever.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Marshall. I found it extremely interesting that this 75-year old elder came to repeat the same words 50 years later. If we do not act now, there will be nothing to repeat because everything will have disappeared.

The philosophy you are talking about, is it deeply anchored in each and every aboriginal person? If your way of life taught you to protect the resource, the surroundings and the environment, how come we have such situations of conflict today? Let us take for example the lobster fishing that is taking place out of season because the First Nations people want to keep on fishing lobster.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Albert Marshall: I have to apologize. I have forgotten the first question.

The Chair: Go ahead, Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I was asking...

[English]

Mr. Albert Marshall: Maybe you could translate it for me. You understand French; I don't. I don't hear very well.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Can your hear me?

[English]

Mr. Albert Marshall: Yes, I can hear you now.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: As I was saying, if each and every aboriginal really believes in what you told us and practices these teachings, how come we have this conflict around the lobster fishery where First Nations fishers want to continue fishing out of season during the summer, between June 1st and October 1st? If this philosophy exists, how come we have this type of problem? What does it hinge on?

• 2040

[English]

Mr. Albert Marshall: That's going to give some credence to what I have said.

At this juncture, with the mere numbers we represent, which is less than 1% of the total population, I don't think we are in the position to cause an imbalance to the conservation and the preservation of the lobster fisheries. On one hand, if we were allowed to exercise our inherent and aboriginal rights in determining how these resources will be utilized, then we would not, and we shouldn't be, fishing out of season, to give those species a chance to rebuild.

The whole emphasis has to be based on the fact that we are not part of the equation, whether the equation is to conserve or the equation is to be part and parcel of the economic initiative this country has experienced since the newcomers first came. I don't know how much I can emphasize this, but we are the original inhabitants of this country, and to date we have not been allowed to be part of the process of any kind, whether in conservation or in preservation of all our beautiful lands. Until such time as we are given ample opportunity to be part of that process, then we will have to continue committing those civil disobediences just to get our facts recognized.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: So this is to demonstrate... the decision of the Court—you bear the same name, Marshall—launched a process that involves people. In your view, could this be an example to follow? If I understood you correctly, you want to be involved in all decision-making processes dealing with the protection of the environment.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Albert Marshall: My understanding of the Marshall case is it was just repeating other court cases, Sparrow, Guerin, Delgamuukw—about our inherent right to access our resources. In Marshall, the courts were quite explicit about how we are entitled to these resources. But nowhere in the history of this world does it say that once the court case is rendered the politicians are then given the opportunity to redefine the decision that was made by the court. It is not our doing; it's something that's been imposed by the multinationals, by the people who are getting rich from exploiting our resources, which we enjoyed for the last 15,000 years before the coming of the Europeans.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Madame Tremblay.

I have Mr. Assadourian for a quick question, and Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

Mr. Marshall, you mentioned 70% of your population is 30 years and younger, and you mentioned also that they are contaminated and you want to reprogram them. I suppose what you mean by that is educate them about your way of living, about the environment, about fishing, about the history and culture of native people. I agree that you should do this, but why don't you do a similar program for non-natives? At the end of the day we all have to live together, natives and non-natives. We have to learn from each other to make this country an even better place to live in.

Mr. Albert Marshall: Maybe I should take that word back, “contamination”, Because I think we are doing just the opposite. In our community, we are striving to find ways and means in which we can utilize the best of the two worlds. I think part of our initiatives to date has been to find the ways and means in which we can incorporate the traditional knowledge with the modern-day science programs. I think to date we have been somewhat successful in getting some of those initiatives recognized in some of the post-secondary institutions like UCCB.

• 2045

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have two questions, and I don't want to sound glib when I say this. On the first issue of traditional knowledge, without question all aboriginal people, regardless of where or when in history, have relied upon traditional knowledge. I think your statement about contamination—I'm not trying to put words in your mouth—is simply that it's taught and you're not born into it. Someone has to teach you traditional knowledge. Someone has to teach you respect of the environment.

On the other issue, what happened to the eels? Did they migrate?

Mr. Albert Marshall: Our information is that as the major fisheries were collapsing, in order to appease these people who were dependent on these major fisheries, DFO—I think in a lot of cases without the proper science—threw out the underutilized species to supplement the fishermen's incomes. I think that's what happened to our eels, because they were very much considered as an underutilized species and we felt there wasn't appropriate science data to support such large-scale fishing.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy, are there any other questions? All in, all done?

Thank you very much, Mr. Marshall. Have a safe drive home. You have a long drive ahead of you.

Mr. Albert Marshall: Thank you.

The Chair: We'll now call forward, from the Ecology Action Centre, Mark Butler, marine coordinator. Then we have two groups following that, waiting patiently, the Sierra Club and the Dalhousie University.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Could we have five minutes?

The Chair: Yes. We'll take a five-minute break.

• 2048

• 2054

The Chair: Could we come to order, committee members.

• 2055

Mark, go ahead, the floor is yours. Welcome.

Mr. Mark Butler (Marine Coordinator, Ecology Action Centre, Nova Scotia): Good evening, chair and members of the committee.

[Translation]

Good evening, members of the committee.

[English]

You must be getting a little punch-drunk after a whole day of presentations.

I have just a couple of words to say about the Ecology Action Centre. We've been around for 30 years. We're a Nova Scotian organization. We have approximately 600 members across the province. Our mission statement is to encourage a society in Nova Scotia that respects and protects nature and also provides environmentally and economically sustainable jobs for its citizens.

Part of my job, I guess, is to point out weaknesses and flaws, so sometimes we sound negative, but that's part of our job. That's what I'm going to do tonight, but I also want to say with respect to the Oceans Act and the Oceans Act office that there are a lot of dedicated people in that office working on trying to advance what that act set out to do. They're doing good things, which we see. I imagine they're also doing good things that we don't see. I just wanted to acknowledge that.

In terms of the implementation of the Oceans Act, I believe the Oceans Act was proclaimed at the end of 1997. In January 1998, the then minister, David Anderson, I believe, stated that public consultations on an oceans strategy would be upcoming. He issued a discussion document. The press release stated that those discussions would be following in a couple of months.

It's now May 2001 and there has been no public consultation on the discussion document. There's no strategy out there and I think we really need one. We really need that public debate and discussion, like we're having here tonight, about what activities are going to take place on the ocean and what our oceans are for.

One of the things that really concerned us in the discussion document that came out was that wealth generation was put up there above everything else and the ocean was described as a new frontier. For those who know something about the ocean, it's wrong to describe it as a new frontier. In many cases it has already been quite heavily exploited. There are no real frontiers left on this planet. We need to have that discussion, and it'll guide and perhaps push forward the implementation of the act.

My second point, just stated simply, is that at present there are no regulations under the Oceans Act. I don't have enough legal background or enough of a legal mind to say concretely and definitively whether that's a good or bad thing, but at present there aren't any. I presume that at some point they're going to have to come to terms with that. I guess you can do some good things without regulations, but I think that at some point you're going to need them. Otherwise, people are going to challenge this. I just highlight that as an issue.

Protected areas, of course, is the big one, the big issue. At present, the flagship one is the Sable Island Gully. We've been involved in some of the science discussions around that. We didn't bring it tonight, but we produced a study on deep sea corals, which was used quite extensively. Susan Gass has followed up on work related to deep sea corals and that work was used in the gully science study.

So far, as I think Faith mentioned, there have been three areas of interest or potential marine protected areas put forward: the gully, Basin Head in P.E.I., and the Musquash Estuary in New Brunswick. I think the conservation council had a lot to do with the one in New Brunswick.

What we saw lacking—and this was a criticism that came from the fishing industry about the work around marine protected areas—is that there wasn't an overall plan presented as to what was coming, how many protected areas there would be, and how much was going to be protected. I can empathize with that. Before you agree to one protected area you want to get some kind of idea of what the big picture is going to be.

• 2100

I don't know where the Oceans Act office is with this right now, but I think there really needs to be a plan presented and a debate around what's going to be protected and how it's going to be protected. We haven't seen that yet, that systems plan and an overall approach.

With respect to the gully, I would agree with Mr. Stoffer that they need to get on with it. They need to start doing the tough stuff. They need to draw the boundaries. Of course, that's a difficult one. They also need to define the activities that will take place in the gully.

In our minds, the main thing that a marine protected area does is protect the bottom of the ocean. Everything else moves. The water moves. The fish move. What you're going to do with a marine protected area, for the most part, is protect the bottom of the ocean. What you want to prohibit are activities that are going to damage the bottom of the ocean in a serious way. Obviously, one of those would be dragging. Another would be oil and gas or oil and gas mining.

Overall we're supportive of marine protected areas, but we're even more supportive of protecting the ocean overall. We don't want to, at great political cost, establish a system of marine protected areas that would protect 5%, 10% or 15% of the ocean and then see the remaining 85% of the ocean badly mismanaged. If you know anything about marine ecosystems, you know that doing that is not going to work. You need to have an overall approach. We don't want to have zero activity in marine protected areas but have all activities outside a marine protected area being poorly managed.

That takes me to integrated management. That's something in the Oceans Act that we really like, this idea of managing human activities. We're not going to manage the whales. We can't because they won't listen to us.

In regard to managing human activities on the ocean in an integrated way, the one I'm most familiar with is the eastern Scotian Shelf and ESSIM. Faith mentioned a couple of other areas. I don't know what the holdup is, but there had been talk of a major workshop planned for late fall of last year, I think, but it was postponed because of the election. It has yet to be rescheduled.

Our real fear is that we're going to sit around the table with fisheries, with oil and gas, and with everybody else, talk about this plan, and then look up and see that the eastern Scotian Shelf is full of new fisheries and oil and gas wells and there'll be nothing left there to protect.

That's part of what's going on with oil and gas overall: who gets there first? The oil and gas industry has definitely been around the block a couple of times, perhaps before the Oceans Act office got off the ground there. That's not necessarily the fault of the Oceans Act office. It's just that they were setting up this licensing process back in the late eighties and early nineties when none of us really had any clue what was going on. By the time we did wake up, 45 licences had already been given out.

I think Helen Lofgren is going to talk about this a little more, but it's really quite illustrative. I don't know what the dates are.

Ms. Helen Lofgren (Chair, Northeast Regional Conservation Committee; Petroleum Issues Coordinator, Atlantic Coast Ecoregion Task Force, Sierra Club of Canada): July 1998 and December 2000.

Mr. Mark Butler: It was July 1998 on the first one and December 2000 on the second one. There are coloured areas shown in our presentation. If you add up the area, it's actually greater than the land area of Nova Scotia. A lot of area has been given out in a very short period of time.

That brings me to the second part of my presentation, which is about oil and gas. In other respects we're probably comparable to other jurisdictions in terms of control of discharge, although we're a little behind Norway or the U.K., let's say. Our licensing process is really a disgrace to this country. It would make George Bush weep with envy. We basically opened up all of the waters of Atlantic Canada. Offshore and onshore have been open to bidding, to nomination, prior to any public consultation or environmental screening. That's nice for the oil and gas industry, but I don't think it shows a lot of respect for the fishing industry or perhaps other industries.

I've included in our presentation an article that involved some research, but probably not enough. We really need some good research on how other countries do this. I think we're quite proud to declare ourselves the next North Sea, but if we're going to do that, perhaps then, at a minimum, we should try to meet the same standards as Norway.

• 2105

The way Norway did it, in contrast to our side of the ocean, was that they chose to open it up in sections. They opened up the western Scotian Shelf, five years later the mid-Scotian Shelf, and then five years later the eastern Scotian Shelf. It was a gradual development. Before they opened up any area, there were environmental assessments done, and there was also public consultation.

The way it works here is that the oil companies nominate an area such as western Cape Breton. They nominate that area in private. They say they're interested in that, and they ask that it be put up for bids. The petroleum board puts it up for bids, and when they announce that bid, that's when the public first hears about it. That's also when fishermen off Cape Breton hear about that exploration licence being up for bids, and that's when Albert Marshall hears about it for the first time. When he says that they often only hear about it after the fact, that's very true, certainly in the case of oil and gas.

For the U.K. also I have some of the website material, which I can provide to anybody who's interested. It explains that they first do an environmental assessment before they open up these areas in order to identify the sensitive areas and the important fishing grounds.

In conclusion, I'd say that what happened off Cape Breton is really...when it was offshore I guess there was less attention when those licences.... Right now if an oil company wants to, they can drill right up to the high tide mark around Cape Breton. When those licences were issued, people woke up, and I think the petroleum board was caught unawares. They shouldn't have been, but they were.

I should just note that the petroleum board has a staff of something like 45, but there's only one individual on that staff who has any real environmental background, André d'Entremont. I think I have a lot to do, but I just can't imagine trying to do his job. They present themselves as both a facilitator for oil and gas exploration and a regulator with respect to health and safety in the environment, yet they've just got one person in there to do that job.

I really encourage you. I think it's an excellent idea to get the director or the CEO of the petroleum board here to speak to you. Maybe you should perhaps go so far as to invite some people over from Norway or the U.K. I think that's what we should have done; we should have looked at how Norway and the U.K. developed their industry and learned a few lessons from that.

I just have a couple of recommendations here following up from statements. They are that DFO should actually get on with the consultations on an oceans strategy. They should have a national debate about what our oceans mean to us and what we're going to do out there. I think there needs to be some real leadership coming from Ottawa concerning the Oceans Act. I don't know how you can encourage that, but it's not an easy act to implement. You have all kinds of players, but they need somebody within Ottawa who's going to push this, someone who's got the acumen and also enough heart to move this act forward.

Unfortunately, most of the area that's of interest to the oil and gas companies has now been licensed. We consider the issuance of a licence to be the single most important factor in the whole oil and gas cycle. Once that licence has been issued, it means the company has already made a bid, they're already committed to spending money, they've already spent money on preparing their bid, and the momentum is there.

It's not acceptable to then say, well, sorry but you can't; we'll do an environmental assessment after the bid has been accepted, and that environmental assessment might decide that you can only drill in half the licensed area. That's too late; it should have been done before. You don't buy a house or a piece of property and then have somebody come along to say, well, actually you can only use half of that property, or you can only do this on that part of the property. Sure, there will be discussions about whether the rig should be here or 500 meters over there or whether the parts per million should be so much, but the fundamental decision—and they call it a fundamental decision—is the issuing of the licence.

There should perhaps be a little more transparency. If the Oceans Act office or other DFO scientists are making recommendations to the petroleum board about sensitive areas, that information should be public. There should be some discussion, because if DFO is doing its job, then it would be good to know about it so we can pat them on the back.

That's my presentation.

• 2110

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mark. There's a lot of information packed in a fairly short presentation.

We'll start with Mr. Wappel, and then Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you very much for your presentation. Personally, I always like a presentation that is short, identifies concerns, and makes recommendations to deal with those concerns. I think you hit all three points for me in your presentation. So I want to thank you for that.

I just want to ask you a few questions flowing from your presentation. Can you offer the committee any explanation as to why there have been no public consultations on the ocean strategy to date? As a public advocacy group, I presume you've asked the question.

Mr. Mark Butler: On the ocean strategy, no, I probably can't offer very much.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Have you asked?

Mr. Mark Butler: I have talked to people, standing around at a meeting. No, I haven't asked formally or written a letter asking why.

Mr. Tom Wappel: It does seem a long time, so that's why I'm curious about it.

I'm new to this committee so I'm looking at many things as a layman. It does seem like a long time, from the time the act received royal assent to now, not to have any public discussions. There may be a reason; that's why I'm asking. So your answer is no.

Let me move on to regulations. You said you're not a lawyer; I am. You asked about regulations. It's fairly simple. I'll put it as simply as I can put it. An act is basically a skeleton. Regulations are the sinew, the muscle, and the remainder that covers the skeleton. Therefore, it's fairly dangerous to walk around as a skeleton. You need a whole body.

So I am concerned that there are no regulations. There could be an explanation. For example, an act is passed but it isn't yet proclaimed. There may be numerous sections of the act that have not yet been proclaimed for a variety of reasons. Therefore, no regulations are needed until proclamation.

However, if an act is proclaimed and there are no regulations, it seriously hampers the ability of the bureaucracy implementing that act to do anything legally, because the regulations basically are the methodology that gives the bureaucracy the permission to do whatever it needs to do. So do you know why there are no regulations? Is it because the act or the appropriate sections have not been formally proclaimed in force? Do you have any idea?

Mr. Mark Butler: No, I believe it was proclaimed. The act is slightly different from the Fisheries Act, for instance, which would definitely require regulations. It's a more facilitative act. Somebody probably in DFO could better answer your question.

They've been using other measures like informal agreements, or perhaps MOUs with the petroleum board, or some kind of gentleman's agreement with Shell and Mobil.

Mr. Tom Wappel: The agreements concerning the ocean make me nervous.

Mr. Mark Butler: Exactly. I'm very glad to see this attention on the Oceans Act. It's a big act, and there's a lot of promise and potential, but there's a certain amount of milling around. Perhaps a false start in one direction. They are moving forward, but it's been some time. No matter how dedicated an individual you are on the ground level, working with people, you need the support and guidance from above, from Ottawa.

I don't know if the minister has really come out and said this is an act that we feel is truly important and we really want to move forward. His attention has perhaps been on Marshall and other issues. They have somewhat of a budget and somewhat of a staff.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Finally, Mr. Butler, Mr. Marshall referred to us as newcomers. And I know he meant it in the sense that the aboriginal people have been here 15,000 years, and that we're newcomers, historically speaking.

I'm a newcomer to this committee and a newcomer to the issue of fisheries.

I agree with you that the issuance of a licence prima facie would indicate that studies have been done, a lot of work has been done, a lot of money has been expended. It would be very upsetting to those people to whom licences have been issued if suddenly they weren't allowed to develop those.

• 2115

I view it with a great deal of concern, at least on the face of it. I am alarmed to see all of those colours in the short space of time we have. I certainly would be looking for some information, from somebody at some time, on why these licences are being issued or on what kinds of licences they are. Are they a sort of licence to have your name over a particular part of the ocean and you take your chances in case nothing is allowed? That's different from expending a lot of money and the expectation that you're going to be drilling.

Mr. Mark Butler: I think the petroleum board is careful to limit what these licences allow the companies, for commercial reasons.

Basically, it's like any other mineral licence. It allows them to drill there. They have five years to drill and expend some money. If they don't, then they forfeit the licence, or if they put down some more money, they have another three years. If they drill and they locate commercial quantities of oil and gas, then they have first rights to a production licence, to a significant discovery licence.

The petroleum board has somewhat acknowledged that there's a flaw here, and I hope they would. The petroleum board issues these areas that are up for bid and then the companies have six months to bid on them. During the bidding period on the last round they conducted an environmental assessment of the areas that were up for bid and released an assessment while the bidding was going on.

I thought it was almost comical. Here you are an oil company and you're about to submit your bid, and just three weeks before you submit it, this environmental assessment comes out. If it says there are right whales in there, it's a poor attempt...but it's a recognition, nonetheless. I think the petroleum board recognizes there's a problem there, but there hasn't been enough push from the other direction.

We met with the directors of the petroleum board. One of the things they said to us was the licensing process isn't dissimilar to that of Norway because we have a fledgling industry here in Canada. To me, that's a very disturbing comment. We don't want to push too hard because we might scare away the oil and gas companies. That's not the way we should treat ourselves. We should say, this is what it is; if you want to come here, if you want to fish here, drill here, whatever, these are the rules.

Obviously, we're sitting right above the biggest energy consumer, and we don't do too badly ourselves. Until George Bush's arrival...Georgia's Bank to Florida is closed, from California to B.C. is closed, much of Alaska is closed, and we just opened up our Atlantic Canada waters, boom, like that.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Butler.

You have a supplementary to these questions, Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Speaking of bidding, can you give us a description of the bidding process?

Mr. Mark Butler: The oil companies do seismic work, and this is the seismic work that will be going on this summer. There was a lot of work done in the seventies and eighties to get us to where we are today with government subsidy.

Anyway, they have information on where there might be potential oil and gas reserves. They go to the petroleum board and say, we're very interested in St. Margarets Bay or the area off Chebucto Head. We would like to see that area nominated so we can bid on it.

So the petroleum board says, okay, and twice a year they put areas up for bid. Then the petroleum board puts that area up for bid and the petroleum companies have six months to submit bids on it. The company that puts in the bid that says they will spend the most amount of money in that area...there's no royalty arrangement or anything like that. If company X says we will spend $10 million over five years, and company Z says we'll spend $12 million, then company Z gets the exploration licence. They have the exclusive right to do exploratory drilling and seismic work in that licensed area.

• 2120

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Is that seismic information available to the public or just to the company?

Mr. Mark Butler: If Shell asks a seismic company to do seismic work for it, then it's proprietary information and it belongs only to that company. Sometimes seismic work is done on spec. A seismic company itself will say, there's a lot of interest in this area here; perhaps we'll do some seismic work right beside it, and then we'll go around to the various companies and try to sell that data. It costs a hell of a lot of money to do seismic work. It involves a big vessel with a lot of crew on board. They're out there for two or three months, towing back and forth.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: If Shell has seismic information, why would they give it to, say, Esso to make a bidding? If Esso doesn't know what's in it, why would they make a bidding?

Mr. Mark Butler: They have to indicate an interest in an area in order for it to be put up for bid. The only way they can actually do exploratory work is to have that exploration licence. At some point you have to reveal your interest in order to be able to go to the next step and do the exploratory drilling.

Am I answering your question?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I'm saying that if I am a company and I don't know what seismic information you have about the bottom of the ocean, why would I get myself involved in a bidding process that would cost me money?

Mr. Mark Butler: There are two things: the seismic work, which is one stage—

The Chair: Mark, if I can, I think, Sarkis, you're confusing the seismic company, which may not be Shell—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: But Shell will hire the seismic company to get information for Shell.

The Chair: That's right. But what Mark is saying is that there are seismic companies out there doing seismic work on spec, and then they go around and try to sell that information.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: The information from the company is for you. How could I go into a bidding war with you when I don't have the same information as you?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: You're independent.

Mr. Mark Butler: I don't know enough about it, but you might have bought the same information or had a survey done a year before. Your geologist might look at the formation and say, that looks good. Or you could put in a bid on spec. That's really—

The Chair: It's business.

Thank you, Sarkis.

We're going to have to speed it up a little bit or it'll be 7 in the morning before we're out of here.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you.

If you haven't figured it out by now, I'm from British Columbia, and it looks like we're going to get into a major discussion on west coast oil and gas offshore.

I found your presentation fascinating because a lot of things have happened here that didn't seem to involve what I would consider to be absolutely essential due process in the jurisdiction I'm most familiar with. Was there a lot of discussion leading up to this, or is the recognition that this process is one you're not happy with just happening now?

Mr. Mark Butler: If we had been on top of things as an organization, we would have been looking, for instance, at the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Accord, which came into effect in 1990, and then scrutinizing the licensing process. We should have scrutinized it before it came into effect, but it wasn't even on the radar for us. It only hit us as this licensing process began to unfold when in one round they issued something like 18 licences. It was kind of an explosion, and it's sad, but when something's 50 to 100 miles from shore, too, people don't pay attention. When it hit home—and I would say it has exploded now—is when they issued those licences off Cape Breton and people began to realize that there's something wrong here.

• 2125

I think there have probably been some nominations for other inshore areas since those inshore licences were issued. I presume that the petroleum board has turned them down. Maybe they haven't, but I think the petroleum board knows now that if they went and issued a licence for Chedabucto Bay or down into St. George's Bay there, other inshore areas around there.... They could issue a licence for St. Mark...well, that actually would be under the province if it's between two headlines. Tomorrow you could open up a newspaper and read that the area off Peggy's Cove is up for bid. You could make a lot of noise. I guess to some extent, we were asleep.

Mr. John Duncan: As a follow-up to that, your point here where you're talking about other nations that perform environmental impact statements and consult.... You make reference to Norway, the U.K., and the Netherlands. Have you studied those jurisdictions enough to know which of those specific three would be the one you would favour more than the other two?

Mr. Mark Butler: Well, I tried calling up the Norwegian Fishermen's Association, and I talked to some scientists over there.... There was a court case in the U.K., actually, that forced improvements in their process several years ago around sensitive areas. The Norwegians seem to have done it, more or less. I'm sure they've improved their process over the years, but they seem to have done it more or less right from the beginning. The other big issue, of course, is, how does all this fit into our commitments under Kyoto, etc., too? They seem to pay more attention to that issue, too.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Where would we turn, Mr. Butler, for this information on Norway, the U.K., and the Netherlands in terms of their process? Do you have any of that information available?

Mr. Mark Butler: Yes, I have some of the websites. The chair got it—

The Chair: Maybe, then, we'll have Alan or somebody contact you and get that information, because it would certainly be good for us to have. And the other question I had is, you said maybe we were asleep at the switch, but I take it that probably the Ecology Action Centre isn't a rolling-in-dough kind of thing. What I find is that many of the groups like yours are up against pretty big-money players, and your ability probably to hire staff and researchers is limited. So could you just give us a bit of an overview in terms of how you're funded and how you're staffed?

Mr. Mark Butler: The way we work is that our core funding comes from members. We have approximately 600 members across the province. That's of course a constant struggle because people's membership is expiring, and they don't always renew. Then we have, for instance, a marine committee because there were a couple of people, marine scientists, who got together and worked on some funding proposals, but they didn't want the job. So I got the job.

We get our funding from a variety of sources—from foundations. Sometimes we get internships through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and we provide opportunities for recent graduates. Many often may go onto bigger and better things. Some of them are working now on coral research. We do fundraisers. We had a garden party on Sunday, and we raised $10,000 through an auction. So we do it through a variety of ways. Unfortunately, in part, some of the interest in the work we're doing around deep sea corals is not in Canada. It's coming from the U.S. We get funding from the New England Aquarium, and I find it kind of sad that...anyway.

• 2130

The Chair: I ask because I used to run an organization for 11 years that depended on voluntary funding, and I know how difficult that job can be, because you're spending most of your time raising money instead of doing what your real objective is. It's not easy.

Anyway, I just wanted to know that information.

Suzanne, did you have any questions?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Well, it's probably a funny question.

[Translation]

Yes, it is such an odd question that I started speaking English.

When I look at all of this, I see that we have zones of interest, protected zones, zones for this, zones for that, our parks, our historical sites and monuments, etc. It is as if there was no room left along the coastline. It is therefore normal that one would leave the shore to go and find jobs for the future. Would you not agree?

Mr. Mark Butler: I felt like speaking French, but I think I had better stick to English.

[English]

You're asking me about the need for jobs and perhaps, because of historic monuments and protected areas, etc...? No? Okay, pardon.

[Translation]

Could you please repeat what you said?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: What I said is that we have talked of all kinds of protected zones along the coastline. Mr. Leblanc was even wondering how we might go about compensating those fishermen who can no longer go out to fish, etc.

Is it not somewhat normal, in these early days of the 21st century, that we think about ensuring the future of generations to come? If there is something available offshore, if we are able to create jobs offshore because of what may be found out there and brought to shore, using pipe-lines or whatever, might we not see this as something important for the future of the country? If this is done in a way that is respectful of all of the rest, it might not be such a bad thing.

[English]

Mr. Mark Butler: George Bush probably, I guess, is pushing in the U.S. to open up areas for their own supply. What we have found profoundly disturbing about that whole approach, of course, is that there is no attempt to conserve fossil fuels before they want to open up those areas. Just to note, we've opened up all these areas, not for...yes, there are economic benefits, but it's not because we're freezing in the dark or anything like that. First, we should be clear about that. It's for export as fast as we can to the United States. Perhaps when we no longer have any fossil fuels, then they might open up their areas, and perhaps they could sell some back to us.

Also, we do make a—

The Chair: Also, at least they'd charge for it. We practically give it away.

Mr. Mark Butler: There's also a question of renewable versus non-renewable. Fish will be here forever if we look after this planet, whereas oil and gas won't. One final thing from an environmental perspective is that there was a lot of taxpayers' money put towards developing this industry. This didn't happen because some company came in from away and said....

There was a lot of taxpayers' money, and it's been going on for a long time, and we'd really like to see some of that taxpayers' money now invested in developing wind energy systems here or solar energy so we have a power source that would last us forever, not.... Like it or not, this is the coal industry of tomorrow. It's not going to last forever, and if we get too addicted to the royalties, then when it's over...perhaps some of us might not be around at that point.

The Chair: Thank you, Mark and Madame Tremblay.

Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much.

It's a great example of what a great group in Nova Scotia with a great history can do on a shoestring. Mark Butler and the EAC are in the papers, whether it be pesticides on lawns, whether it be marine, whether it be coral, fish, whatever. They are really in the forefront in terms of getting...and I think it's a credit to their organization that they could bring alternative discussions to the table.

• 2135

But he said something that is very true. I believe this is how all that happened. My statement can be refuted by anybody, that's fine, but I think what happened was that the oil and gas sector came up, and in the 1970s and 1980s a lot of taxpayers' money went to fund this industry. Then desperate provincial and federal governments said, look, we're going to have to do something over here. All of a sudden, these industries came in and said, just trust us and we'll do it, and they set up the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

The Chair: Do you have a question, Peter?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: There will be.

And all of a sudden, bang.

Mark, I don't think you were asleep at the wheel. I think you're the average Canadian, and you have a basic trust in your government that they will protect and preserve our natural habitat for all of us. Before you knew it, and before all of us knew it, bang, these oil and gas reserves are out there and the licences are given.

You're absolutely right when you say this has a shelf life of 20, 30, or maybe 40 years, and it may do damage to our fish stocks and it may not.

I know you said that the gentleman said it's a fledging industry, and the government said, oh, we don't want to piss these guys off; we had better be nice to them and keep them around. But why do you think they would kowtow so much to those organizations when the oil and gas wasn't going to go anywhere? Now the toxic Texan is saying down in the United States, we're going to open up everything here and just let it go to hell in a handcart.

In all honesty, why do you think we as provincial and federal governments literally laid down and let them roll over us while they expropriated our resources with really no consultation at all?

The Chair: There is a question in there?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: He said he couldn't give an answer to Tom, but I'd really like him to say why he thinks—

The Chair: Mr. Butler, go ahead.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Why do we give it away?

Mr. Mark Butler: A lot of people say the big fish companies were big players. The oil companies came into this province, and they're even bigger players. They carry a lot of economic clout. You have a provincial government that is in a difficult financial situation, and I think it's looking at royalties as the main way out. That's a little scary. As far as I can tell, it's the province that is actually more twitchy all over about oil and gas. The federal government has a little more perspective.

If it is the decision of the people of this province and Atlantic Canada to go ahead with oil and gas, there are ways to do it that show respect for the other industries, for the environment, and for yourselves, and show a little more caution and care and long-term thinking.

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

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have a couple of points, Mark. We've had some of this debate before.

As a couple of corrections to what you said, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Accord was originally signed in 1984 and was re-signed in 1986 and 1990. In 1990 they looked at a production agreement for the first time.

You raised a number of questions here that need to be asked, but I think it's incumbent upon on the committee now to get the other side of the story out, to find out exactly how the leases are given, because there were more questions raised than answered in this discussion, at least for me.

I want to ask you a question on the leases. I don't know how this started any more than you do, but the way mining leases work, you can claim a piece of property, and you can do your environmental assessment after you do your exploration and you go into production. You do your exploration; you prove there's exploitable material, a mineral, there; and then you do your environmental assessment before you do your exploitation. I'm not sure if that's the way the offshore is done, but obviously we need to find that out.

• 2140

The other issue is that there's a lot of blocks of property there. I think Mr. Stoffer made the comment that it was 5.7 million hectares. To your knowledge—I think you might have this answer—how many wells have been drilled in the offshore, and what's the change in the drilling technology?

I think that's important for committees looking at fish to understand. Wells used to take a year to 14 months to drill. Now they take 90 days, and some are drilled in less time than that. Technology has changed, and quite frankly, technology is better and safer and cleaner than it has ever been. But how many wells have been drilled—exploration and production?

Mr. Mark Butler: Over the last 30 years, if you look at a map of the Scotian Shelf, for instance, there have been quite a few. Actually, I don't know, but there have been probably more than 30 over the last 30 years.

There are two or three rigs out there. Copan has finished production; it started in the mid-1980s, and it has finished producing. Now Sable has started up, they're talking about starting Deep Panuke, which will be another producing well.

Just to correct you, it's licensed, not leased.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: On the exploration, yes.

Mr. Mark Butler: On the 1990, I don't know why that date sticks in my mind, but I'll check and get back to you on it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The other issue you mentioned was whales. There has been a lot of discussion about whales on the offshore, and a lot of discussion certainly from the Ecology Action Centre. But from anyone I've talked to about the offshore, and from anything I've seen in the offshore, the process of drilling itself doesn't affect whales. Actually, it doesn't bother whales at all. If anything, the sound attracts them. Certainly with the wells that were the furthest out, that were drilled on the Scotian Shelf, the humpbacks used to lie beside the rig and rub against the leg while it was drilling.

Mr. Mark Butler: You have to distinguish between seismic and drilling.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm talking about drilling.

Mr. Mark Butler: Yes, okay.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't know what seismic....

Mr. Mark Butler: When I walk down along the harbour there, I see lots of black ducks around the sewer outfalls. Just because something is there—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You're losing me on the analogy.

Mr. Mark Butler: I'm just saying, because something is attracted to a human activity, it doesn't necessarily mean it's good for it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm not saying it was. I'm just saying it's—

Mr. Mark Butler: But just quickly on that point, when it comes to seismic, I hear there have been two studies from Australia, funded by the petroleum companies, that show that actually baleen whales tend to show more avoidance from seismic than toothed whales.

They also did studies on fish. The more studies we do in these impacts, the better off we are and the more impacts we show. They showed that there is perhaps actual physical damage to the ears of fish within less than two kilometres, which would be quite disturbing, because up until now, really the physical impacts of seismic have been thought to occur only within five or six metres of eggs and larvae. But this is suggesting that there could actually be physical damage further away from these seismic vessels that are sending out—

Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Chairman, as a point of clarification, is seismic the same as sonar?

Mr. Mark Butler: Well, seismic is a very, very powerful sonar.

Mr. Tom Wappel: The U.S. Navy has now found out that submarines using sonar are seriously damaging the ears of whales.

Mr. Mark Butler: Yes, there was some incident in the U.S. where they were using some technology where subsequently whales turned up on beaches with damaged—

Mr. Tom Wappel: But they accepted responsibility for it. They were just checking—

Mr. Mark Butler: Yes.

Fishing vessels have sonar—for instance, their side-scan sonar to map the ocean floor. But these sound waves penetrate two or three kilometres down into the earth's crust, so it's a fairly powerful sound.

Again, I'm not an expert, and it's a very difficult thing to study, of course, because do you ask a humpback whale whether their hearing has been damaged? You can't chase after them. This is one of the first studies they've done on it.

The Chair: Okay, thank you. We're done, Gerald.

Mark, do you have any last points you want to make? You said the study was done in Australia. Is it possible for us to—

Mr. Mark Butler: Sure, I can give you copies of both.

• 2145

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mark. I know there is a lot more we could discuss with committee members, but it is starting to get a little late, and Peter will have another speech or two, I'm sure.

We have two witnesses left. I would ask them both to come to the table together and we will hear a presentation from each, and then we will go to a joint questioning, if we could.

The Sierra Club is next. From the Sierra Club of Canada, we have Helen Lofgren, who is the chair of the Northeast Regional Conservation Committee and coordinator of the offshore and coastal petroleum issues.

Could I also ask the Dalhousie University people to come up as well, Joanne Weiss and Susan Gass.

We'll start with the Sierra Club, Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. Helen Lofgren: Thank you.

I'd like to comment that I too am from a seriously underfunded group and I am here in my capacity as a volunteer. The more I do of this the more acutely aware I become of how necessary it is to keep doing this and how I end up giving away almost all of my time—although for very worthy causes—to sit before people who are earning a decent living doing it. So not only is my organization underfunded very seriously, but it also is absolutely dependent on volunteer activity that takes a lot of knowledge, expertise, and time.

I want to say I brought those maps, which I hope you will acquire for yourselves. They're from the offshore petroleum board; they're available from there. There are also small ones that each one of you should have. I only brought the first one that I knew of from July 1998, and the most recent one, December 2000, to show you how quickly the parcels have come up for bid. The red ones are the ones that are open for bid and the coloured ones are colour coded for the different petroleum companies, and you can see the coding at the bottom. There's a slight difference, a slight change in the colour coding, but it's mostly the same. That enlarged area is the Sable Gully area.

In the early 1990s the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity determined that an ecosystem and precautionary approach must be taken to protect global marine ecosystems under siege for the previous 50 years. This was followed by the establishment of Canada's Oceans Act, which states that a precautionary and ecosystem approach must be taken if scientific evidence is uncertain or does not prove the harmlessness of industrial development on the marine ecosystem.

In the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, where the petroleum industry is poised to begin seismic exploration, there has been no thorough environmental assessment. Where is the precaution in major petroleum activity undertaken without adequate assessment? Are not our governments violating Canada's Oceans Act by allowing exploration to proceed without precaution?

The 1,000 square miles of the southern gulf is in the midst of spawning, nursery and migratory routes for lobster, herring, snow crab, mackerel, tuna, Atlantic salmon and recovering groundfish commercial species, and is one of the most productive multi-species inshore fisheries on the east coast.

Parcel one on the west coast of Cape Breton, indicated in the grey up there, is home to an abundance of whales and dolphins and is known as the gateway to the southern gulf. Scientific studies undertaken elsewhere show that seismic blasting kills larval and juvenile fish and disrupts migratory routes of adult groundfish. DFO knows that fish juveniles remain in the southern gulf and don't migrate with the adults. They remain all year. The following year there is a new class of juveniles hatched and the process begins again.

• 2150

There is no safe time to undertake seismic blasting in the southern gulf. It is already proven that seismic blasting throws adults off course, where they may lay eggs in habitat unsuitable to the survival of juveniles. Besides the direct impacts of blasting, there is ample evidence to show that eggs and juveniles are extremely susceptible to the negative effects of pollution and contamination of any sort.

David Lincoln, of Gloucester, Massachusetts Fisherman's Family Association, and former long-time industry petroleum geologist, reports that it is impossible to have petroleum development without leakages and at least small spills. He reports that this is well known within the industry and is a well-guarded industry secret. Furthermore, there are spills and leakages of major impact that go on daily around the world, very few of which are reported.

How can DFO believe that the southern gulf will be uniquely exempt from these routine events? There are no seaward currents within the southern gulf, only tidal action. So any contamination will remain within it and eventually go to land: Cape Breton, mainland Nova Scotia, P.E.I., New Brunswick, or up around to the Gaspé.

There is a critical need to implement the Oceans Act provisions for precaution, an ecosystem approach, and integrated management that looks at the fisheries, coastal communities, first nations interests, and others.

As the process stands now, parcels are secretly nominated by petroleum interests for bid. The offshore petroleum board allows bidding for six months and licences are awarded often for a song compared to profits they may bring to shareholders.

Throughout the world the petroleum licensing process is changing. In Norway, regions are closed and out of bounds until opened by an act of parliament following comprehensive environmental assessment. In the U.K., sensitive areas have been identified and are closed to bidding. Most of the coastal U.S. is under moratorium.

Canada seems to be going backwards in this process. It is time Canada changes.

Sierra Club of Canada is requesting that all existing coastal Cape Breton licences be withdrawn now, starting with parcel one to Corridor Resources and Sydney Bight to Hunt Oil Company, with no new licences issued.

We are requesting that a full independent environmental assessment be conducted by an independent review panel for inshore exploration surrounding Cape Breton Island and the rest of Nova Scotia such as that commissioned for Georges Bank.

We request that there be a minimum of three panellists with marine biological background and adequate funding and time to undertake the full assessment. It is far too immense and grave an undertaking to be entrusted to one person, no matter how capable, most especially since the designated panellist's doctorate is in adult education and not any of the marine sciences.

• 2155

It might be appropriate to include this person as one of the panellists, but it would not be acceptable to have her as the sole panellist responsible for hiring out scientific consultation, which is not at all the same thing.

In the worst-case scenario, if the oil and gas companies are allowed to proceed, in 20 years the oil and gas will be gone and the fish will be gone. In the opposite scenario, if fishermen, first nations, environmentalists, and concerned citizens are wrong by exercising a precautionary approach, in 20 years the oil and gas will still be there, more valuable than ever, and a healthy and viable inshore fishing industry will still be there.

Hopefully by then, sensitive areas will be identified and the fish protected for our children and our children's children. Hopefully by then, we will have made real strides in energy conservation and the reduction of human contributions to global warming, and major strides in the switch to non-fossil sustainable energy.

Thank you.

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

We'll hold questions until the other witnesses present. We will try to get copies of the maps as well, just for your information. We've put in the process to get them ordered.

Joanne, I believe you're making the presentation. Welcome. It's great to see people of your young age here.

Ms. Joanne Weiss (Graduate Student, Dalhousie University): We're actually sharing the presentation.

The Chair: Good. Okay. Go ahead.

Ms. Joanne Weiss: I'm Joanne Weiss. I do a lot of research at Dalhousie University at the School of Resource and Environmental Studies in marine protected areas. I've done—

The Chair: I'm going to try to slow you down a bit. The interpreters have had a long day. Claudia can go fairly fast, but not that fast.

Ms. Joanne Weiss: Okay.

I've done a lot of research in marine protected areas and vast approaches to marine conservation. Susan has done a lot of research on deep sea coral conservation and protection.

I'll start by saying that marine protected areas are not the only measure to protect the ocean environments, but we will be looking at specifically the development of MPAs under the Oceans Act.

Again, our area of interest is in marine species and habitat conservation. We are interested in the establishment of MPAs in Canada, their progress, and their development. We recognize that there's an urgent need to act quickly to identify and protect marine environments, species, and habitat.

With the numerous oil and gas licences or leases and fisheries licences being issued at a rapid rate in Atlantic Canada, we think the Oceans Act has good potential and is a step in the right direction. However, if it proceeds at the current rate, there will be nothing left to protect in Canada's oceans.

So we are here to express our concern about the progress of marine conservation under the Oceans Act. Some of the things we're going to talk about are the progress of marine protected areas in Canada today, some of the need for collaboration amongst stakeholders, the need for clarification of the terms used in the Oceans Act legislation, and future prospects for MPA development in Canada.

Progress to date...some of you expressed some concern about the amount of protection in Canada's oceans being too much. I don't think anybody should have any worries because to date there is very little protection in Canada's oceans. Since the passage of the Oceans Act, there is only one site, maybe the size of this room, which is Race Rocks, which has been protected under the Oceans Act.

The progress has been very, very slow. Legal formalities continue to present problems. Places like the gully, as addressed before, should already be protected today. New sites should continue to be researched.

• 2200

There have been a lot of definitions for marine protected areas. My understanding of a marine protected area is that all harmful activities should be managed in sensitive areas. Therefore, the entire ocean should be a marine protected area, if this is what a marine protected area is defined as. I believe a marine protected area is not necessarily the management of harmful activities in sensitive areas. I think a marine protected area is an area that should be set aside for research and set aside as a benchmark in Canada's oceans.

So one of the recommendations we're going to be making is that DFO needs to assign a time framework for the designation of marine protected areas, because as it stands today the progress is very slow and the process is far too slow. DFO should recognize that it is in fact a very lengthy process and should identify some of the interim protection measures that should be added to the legislation. DFO should also publish a guide for NGOs, academics, and community groups as to the actual procedures in designation, because it is very confusing and unclear right now.

A lot of the plans that DFO has been doing that are written on paper need to be implemented in practice. So you can have a library of interesting and fabulous planning, but they need to be implemented. So there is a time lag there that I'd like to emphasize.

Collaboration needs. Sections 29, 31, and 33 promote a collaboration with other ministers, boards, agencies and provincial governments. DFO should lead, cooperate, and facilitate development of MPAs.

This has been done a little bit on the Pacific coast, where the provincial government and the federal government have put together a strategy for the development of marine protected areas. However, on the Atlantic coast this remains a challenge. There is no cooperation among Parks Canada, DFO and Environment Canada to develop a plan, an overall strategy, for marine protected areas. DFO right now is pretty much the Lone Ranger fighting for marine protected areas. So this needs to be addressed.

As I said, there's no provincial involvement here in Nova Scotia. It seems that the province is more interested in economic development, and there has been very little recognition of the role of community groups and NGOs in MPA designation. So again, collaboration is promoted in legislation but is not well done in practice. So I'd like to emphasize the need for a marine protected areas strategy on the Atlantic coast.

There's been a lot of confusion, I've noticed today, between Parks Canada's effort, Environment Canada's effort, and DFO's effort towards marine conservation. So this should emphasize the need for DFO to coordinate and lead an MPA strategy for the Atlantic coast.

Another recommendation is that DFO definitely needs to take a stronger leadership role as they have a mandate to do so. Marine conservation, in my opinion, has not been their priority, and it should be made their priority.

Another thing is, I've been studying MPA development for about eight months since I've been here in Nova Scotia, and I have never learned more than I have tonight about the DFO initiative. So I'd like to emphasize the importance of communicating the initiative towards marine conservation to the public, academics, and NGOs, who are working to essentially attain the same goal.

The Chair: Thank you, Joanne.

We'll turn to Susan.

Did you get a copy of the DFO presentation as well when it was made available?

Ms. Joanne Weiss: Yes, I did.

The Chair: Susan.

Ms. Susan Gass (Graduate Student, Dalhousie University): Thank you for fitting us in at the last minute today.

I'm going to talk a little bit about the clarification of terms within the act and within the marine protected areas section of the act.

First, in the preamble of the Oceans Act, it states that “Canada holds that conservation, based on an ecosystem approach, is of fundamental importance to maintaining biological diversity”. This term “ecosystem approach” is not well defined and it is unclear how the minister intends to use this approach to protect the marine environment.

• 2205

Second, in section 30 of the act, it states that the national strategy will be based on the principles of the precautionary approach. The precautionary approach is defined in the act as erring on the side of caution, which I feel is a very vague definition.

So although this concept is an excellent concept in theory, and it's excellent that it's included as a basic and fundamental principle of the act, what we want to know is how is it going to be applied in practice? Where has it been applied? The term needs to be defined more clearly with guidelines of how and when DFO will be applying this concept.

For example, if it had been applied in the past, we would probably have actually seen a marine protected area at this stage. One way it could be interpreted is that protection measures would be implemented even in cases where there is not enough information to judge the status of a species or a habitat until this information becomes available. So although it is important to base conservation on good science, you could interpret the precautionary approach as a means of implementing protection when it's at the point before you have the full necessary information.

A specific example of this would be deep sea corals, which are known to be a sensitive species that are potential habitats for fish, certain commercially fished species, as well as invertebrates. We do not have an extensive knowledge of their distribution and relative abundance off Atlantic Canada, but there have been some coral sites identified. So under the precautionary approach, one could assume that some of these areas could be protected until we have further information.

I'll rephrase our recommendations concerning the precautionary approach. It should be more clearly defined in the definition and DFO should define how and when it plans on using this approach.

In section 35 of the act, it describes four specific reasons for which marine protected areas can be designated, and under these sections, (b), (c), and (d), there are several terms I'd like to bring out that we feel need to be clearly defined.

The first one is a marine protected area can be implemented based on, or for the reason of, endangered and threatened species and their habitat. But nowhere does it describe what is an endangered or threatened species, who will make this determination, and what is to be done if not enough information is available to determine whether a species is in danger or threatened.

The second one is unique habitats. Again, that could be interpreted in different ways. So what is a unique habitat and how does an area fall under this category?

Finally, there is marine areas of high biodiversity or high productivity. How is this defined? Is biodiversity referring to diversity on a genetic species or population level or all three? What is high? Is it a high area relative to other areas in Canada or are we comparing a high biodiversity to, say, tropical marine areas.

Finally, I'll talk a little bit about future prospects of marine protected areas. We'd like to see a continuation in collaboration with research, industry, NGOs, academics, and community groups. And I think this especially becomes important with oil and gas. I also want to emphasize something that Mark Butler mentioned, which is that there are no guidelines of what is the ultimate plan for marine protected areas in the Scotian Shelf.

Then I'd like to address one additional concern, which is that DFO under the Oceans Act is meant to be a leader to facilitate marine conservation. It was discussed earlier that DFO has an advisory or advising role with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, and I'm just curious, if DFO is advising the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board on identifying important areas for fish, how is it that the entire Scotian Shelf has been leased out to oil and gas companies, including the important area off Cape Breton, an area of very healthy, sustainable fisheries?

• 2210

Is there one person whose job it is to do this advising? How much time do they put into it?

That's it. Thank you.

The Chair: Good question. We should have had DFO after, and then we'd have had some tougher questions for Faith. We may have to call you to Ottawa again, Faith, you never know.

Thanks to all three of you very much for the work you did preparing the presentations, as well as for coming forward to give them. We appreciate it, and we appreciate you staying to this hour of the evening.

Mr. Duncan first.

Mr. John Duncan: I want to make what I think is a technical point first.

In the Dalhousie presentation you stated that there is only one site legally protected under this legislation. Isn't the deep vents off the B.C. coast also a protected site under the MPAs? I believe it is.

Ms. Joanne Weiss: Is it now? Is it recently protected? I have been doing some studies on this, and it's the only one I had heard of on the west coast.

Mr. John Duncan: I'm quite sure I'm correct. So it would be worth—

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, the British Columbia Park is like the Saguenay Park. It is not a park that is recognized under the Oceans Act; rather, it is established under a specific act.

[English]

Ms. Joanne Weiss: The only thing I can clarify is that I don't know if DFO—

The Chair: Sorry, I see some people from Fisheries shaking their heads in agreement with Suzanne. So we'll check it out, John.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay.

The Chair: It seems your information is correct.

Joanne.

Ms. Joanne Weiss: It's my understanding there's only one under the Oceans Act—

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: In the case of the one in Quebec, it is a specific act.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, fair enough.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: With regard to the park in Quebec, it comes under a specific act. When it was created, when the act was passed, I know that there was talk of the British Columbia park. The Reform Party at the time had voted against this because its representatives were afraid that we would do the same thing with them, but that park was supposed to be recognized by virtue of the same principle. But the one in Quebec is covered by a specific act that recognizes it.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: I won't bother.

I have a question relating to I think it was Joanne's recommendation that DFO take a much stronger lead on MPAs. We heard in our earlier testimony from DFO that there really didn't seem to be a strong interest in doing this in terms of the other departments of the federal department. This may be a very strong recommendation for this committee to make.

I'll give you an example. This committee asked to review, under our mandate, the legislation in the House right now on the heritage department's marine conservation area, and we were told no. So here's the fisheries and oceans committee basically being told no, it's not your mandate.

I want it to be clear. Is this really what you were recommending? I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth. Are you recommending that DFO take the lead on the determination of marine protected areas emanating from the national government?

Ms. Joanne Weiss: I tried to say DFO has a leadership role under this legislation as coordinator of efforts in marine conservation. I believe the work of Parks Canada, Environment Canada, and all other voluntary forms of marine protected areas should be promoted.

• 2215

If the Oceans Act is going to give this authority to the minister to coordinate marine protected areas, this leadership role should be taken seriously. There should be more concentration on this leadership; DFO should step up and say its mandate is to coordinate marine protected areas and this is how we're going to bring it all together. Then people needn't question which legislation is protecting what, and how Parks Canada differentiates between all of them.

There is a need for them to take a leadership role in sorting this all out and putting it together in a package, saying this is how marine conservation is going to work in Canada and these are the major players.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you. That clarifies exactly what you were saying. It was great.

I have another question. The jurisdictional issue isn't addressed in your recommendations, and yet it's central to the success or failure of the enterprise in many respects in terms of marine protection areas.

Let's take an example of what I am referring to: the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board works through joint decision-making between the federal government and the province, whereas marine protected areas are essentially a federal initiative. The incentive for the province to involve themselves in the marine conservation enterprise is obviously much less than it is to involve themselves in the Offshore Petroleum Board, simply because they are not a full player.

Did this concern you in any of your deliberations, and do you see any recommendation that might address this?

Ms. Joanne Weiss: In terms of jurisdiction, I am not too familiar with it here in Nova Scotia, because I have been mostly looking at comparisons between B.C. and Nova Scotia.

I know in B.C. the province has definitely claimed more responsibility in terms of marine environment, has extended their jurisdictional powers and used them to protect some ocean environments. I'm not quite sure what role the province has here in Nova Scotia. I know they have some claim to royalties for oil and gas development, but I still have not really sorted out the jurisdictional issues here; I can't comment.

Mr. John Duncan: You'd probably concur that there needs to be more incentive for the province to become a full partner in marine protection.

Ms. Joanne Weiss: I think the province does have responsibility for protection of the marine environment in their jurisdiction. Although they deny it well, they do have some responsibility for marine conservation. We've had this discussion before, I think, but....

Mr. John Duncan: And the word I used was incentive. I concur—

Ms. Joanne Weiss: There should be more incentive, yes.

Mr. John Duncan: —with responsibility.

The Chair: Thank you Joanne, John.

Madame Tremblay, and then Mr. LeBlanc.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: First of all, I have a little question. I would like to know where Race Rocks is.

[English]

Ms. Joanne Weiss: At the southern tip of Vancouver Island, before it was designated under the province's ecological reserve.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Good. Fine.

I now have a question for the representative from the Sierra Club. I enjoyed the three presentations which, naturally, were very interesting. We have a lot to learn. However, you stated in the beginning of your presentation that your impression is that the Canadian government, our governments and the government of Nova Scotia, have themselves in a way violated the Oceans Act by granting drilling and exploration licenses for areas along the coastline. Do you really believe that?

• 2220

[English]

Ms. Helen Lofgren: I do believe that, because the environmental assessment hasn't taken place and because there is real danger and real harm has been done in the fishery, and it is going to continue. I know on good authority, from speaking with David Lincoln, to whom I referred, that there is always leakage, there are always spills. Common sense tells us it can't be otherwise. So whether the disaster is on a small scale or a large scale, it is going to happen, and I do believe this is in violation of the Oceans Act.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Could you point to any research supporting what you are saying, namely that there is always leakage, etc.? Are there any research papers you could refer us to?

[English]

Ms. Helen Lofgren: I have it through personal communication from David Lincoln. He and I did a joint presentation for the Sierra Club and the Gloucester Fishermen's Family Association in Gloucester, Massachusetts, in September, during that huge hurricane a couple of years ago, and it was at that time that I learned it from him. I can certainly provide contact for the committee with him, and I do hope we will have the pleasure of hearing him speak on coastal and offshore petroleum development in this area. He's a very valuable resource.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Tremblay.

Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Sierra Club for their presentation, and particularly Joanne and Susan. I think it's a great initiative for grad students at Dalhousie to put together a presentation, waiting on the Tuesday evening until this hour to make it. You should be commended, it was a good presentation. I agree with my colleague Mr. Duncan that the recommendations were interesting. I really laud you for having taken the initiative of doing this.

I have one quick question. Joanne, at the beginning, on the first page, your recommendations refer to the lengthy process involved in legal designations. If, as you say, there's one fight since 1997, it certainly is long. You talk about temporary protection measures. What kinds of measures would you envisage, and how would they work? What suggestions would you have if the minister said to you, what temporary measures, in your opinion, would be valuable?

Ms. Joanne Weiss: There are other temporary measures, like fisheries closures, that could be applied to that area. For example, in the gully they could have a memorandum on oil and gas exploration. They can enforce fisheries closures, I believe, overnight in certain areas when there are species at risk. Those are the ones I know of. I think there may be even more they can apply under the Fisheries Act. I think they should be listed in the Oceans Act as temporary means of protection or interim means of protection.

Ms. Susan Gass: The other, even simpler concept is to have a voluntary closure, where the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could advertise that this area is important and on the list to be protected and ask all industry users to stay out of the area in the meantime. One thing that can really help that initiative is if you can get this area marked on a nautical chart.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

• 2225

Mr. Stoffer. I'm surprised you have a question.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I know, it's shocking—not a statement, but a question.

Everywhere we go, when we talk about fisheries management, we always hear from DFO that they operate on the precautionary principle. Do any of you believe that?

Ms. Helen Lofgren: No.

Ms. Susan Gass: No.

Ms. Joanne Weiss: No.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: That's three nos for the record.

In Mark Butler's documentation he says:

As of May 2001 there have been no public consultations or strategy.

This is when it comes to the Oceans Act—that was in January of 1998. And all through her document Faith Scattolon talks about the consultation with various groups, aboriginal groups, first nations groups, community groups, other departments, etc. Yet in your brief, Ms. Weiss, on page 3, it says:

there has been little effort to coordinate MPA efforts in Nova Scotia. Section 33(a) states that the Minister “shall cooperate with other ministers, boards and agencies....” Yet in Nova Scotia there is little cooperation and collaboration amongst government agencies (e.g. between Parks Canada, Environment Canada and DFO).

Faith's presentation seems to contradict what you've said. Could you explain the contradiction? She seems to have indicated that there's a lot of consultation and collaboration going on in various things, whether it be East Chezzetcook, whether it be in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, wherever. You seem to indicate, and Mark seemed to indicate, that there is very little or no collaboration or consultation going on.

Ms. Joanne Weiss: Parks Canada and DFO are good examples. I've spoken to Parks Canada about their plan. They put together a plan for representation of ecoregions in Canada. They have published documents and initiatives to identify national marine conservation areas, so I assumed they were cooperating with DFO in their strategy towards marine protected areas. But when I was trying to make sense of their responsibilities out here in Nova Scotia, some of the main people who are or would be responsible in the province for marine conservation said, basically, they weren't involved in any projects. So they were not involved with DFO or Parks Canada, and Parks Canada also said they had little cooperation, because they're not pursuing any of their marine conservation initiatives right now. So my understanding is that there's very little cooperation between them.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: As a last question, if you were on the committee and you could make one quick and dirty recommendation that we could take to the minister, what recommendation would you make? You've heard all the testimony here tonight from the various people. What recommendation would you make to the minister in order to protect the habitat we have in Nova Scotia?

Ms. Susan Gass: I have a quick one, based on the precautionary approach, and that is, speed up the process.

The Chair: Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. Helen Lofgren: I would say, withdraw all the licences and do proper environmental assessments, with a properly constituted panel, very thorough, and then look again at the licensing procedure.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: So a licence should be based upon a prior environmental assessment.

Ms. Helen Lofgren: Absolutely.

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

Mr. Keddy, you're next, and then Mr. Lunney, and that's it. It's getting late.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 2230

To the witnesses, first, thank you for coming. But second, it's the same issue we dealt with before. We raise more questions than we're answering. I think I'll make a recommendation to you and to the clerk that we have to bring the people into established jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is not established and it's not clear. I think part of that is the study of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Accord and how that establishes some of the jurisdictional difficulties we're dealing with.

A couple of questions bother me. One was, is Canada violating the Oceans Act? I think that's been raised before, but it's a significant question and something we need to look at. At the same time, there is activity going on, and I don't think we can ignore or deny that or be Luddites and try to pretend that it isn't going to happen. So we need to find a way to work with environment and industry.

There's a comment that there's no such thing as safe seismic blasting. Well, how do you proceed if you can't do it? Seismic blasting is a very harsh-sounding term, and there are a lot of studies for committee members who want to read them on what seismic blasting does, how big an area it affects, and how long it disrupts fish patterns.

Ms. Lofgren, you made the statement that there's no such thing as a safe rig or a rig that's not going to have pollutants of some sort going into the ocean. Quite frankly, I would think, if that were true, business would be shut down. The industry has changed a lot, but I worked in it for eight years and I can tell you for a fact that there are all kinds of safe rigs and there are all kinds of rigs that don't put contaminants in the ocean. I don't know where your expert from the U.S. got his information, but I've been out there on the rig 24 hours a day. I'm not saying that there haven't been mistakes, but this is going to proceed, so how do we make it work?

I would suggest—and I've suggested this to oil companies and have made no headway with it, so I'll suggest it to you—that we have monitors on board foreign trawlers, and we should have monitors on board rigs, and the government could have a DFO person involved. I'm hearing a lot of this between DFO and Environment, but DFO are the people we have, and there are a lot of good officials—I take objection to some of the comments made—there are a lot of good people in DFO. They're the only people we have on the front line. By far the majority of them are doing their job, though as with any group or industry, there may be some who don't. Would that settle part of your fears, if you had some type of a monitoring system that was accountable?

The Chair: That is your question?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes. Thank you.

The Chair: You're sitting too close to Peter, obviously. You both get long-winded.

Ms. Helen Lofgren: Was that addressed to me?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

Ms. Helen Lofgren: I suppose if we had impartial monitors who were not representative of the industry, we might know more. If they were not beholden in any way to the industry, we might know more about what actually goes on. I'm glad that you did declare yourself as part of the industry.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm not part of the industry; I'm a politician.

Ms. Helen Lofgren: Well, you said you worked in the industry.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: From 1980 to 1988.

Ms. Helen Lofgren: Thank you. I'm just glad to know that.

I would like to say again, I would really like the committee to invite Dave Lincoln, who is a veteran of 20 years or more as a petroleum geologist in the industry. He can answer these concerns better than I. According to him, there is no way there can be drilling and production without leakage. I know all kinds of equipment have been improved over the years, but we also go farther and deeper in much more dangerous kinds of circumstances, and accidents happen all the time. You're saying the petroleum development is here to stay, but I would say, let's look at things like reduction in our energy use; let's look at sustainable alternatives.

• 2235

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's a given. Would you agree with a DFO person on board every rig that ever goes on the offshore, a monitor who would be there 24 hours a day and would get relieved every two weeks to deal with the issue you're talking about? You're saying there are contaminants going over the side of the rig or leakage of the drill pipe. That can all be checked. It's not that scientific. There's a very simple methodology to do it.

Ms. Helen Lofgren: Those things can all be checked and they can all be observed and probably a lot of it can be improved, but I do not believe it can be stopped in any way. Accidents are going to happen.

I was an intervener in the Sable gas pipeline hearings. I was present almost every day throughout those hearings and I heard people talk about things like the amount of accidents in how many years. It's going to happen. We have climate change and the weather is getting more unpredictable. So we would be very foolish not to expect that some of these things are going to happen.

Ms. Susan Gass: Perhaps I could comment on that as well. Rather than having monitors, I see a better answer that would be earlier on in the process. This has already been stated. Identify the sensitive areas on the ocean floor first, and then avoid those areas. So if you do have a rig and there is a problem, then it's in a less sensitive area. This can be done like the Norwegian process. Their process allows them to avoid all the sensitive areas because they do this comprehensive—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: My question—

The Chair: Thank you very much, Susan.

Mr. Keddy, sir, 20 seconds and that's it. You can have the mike.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Quite seriously, I assume this will be done. Somehow or another we'll work through the regulations, we'll put the regulations in place, we'll put some rules and regulations to the Oceans Act. What I'm talking about is, how do you continue to monitor the process after you do that? It's not the golden answer here, it's just part of a process.

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

Mr. Lunney, last question.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wanted, again, to add my appreciation to the witnesses for coming and staying so late.

You've raised some very good issues for us to follow up on. Some very good language in the act on issues that you've raised...the precautionary approach, the ecosystem approach...talking about areas of high biodiversity, without really explaining what that means and how to apply it.

Of course, you've also raised some good points that there are other stakeholders such as university researchers. There are other eyes and ears, other contributors out here who might be giving valuable insight in identifying where the areas of high biodiversity and areas of particular interest might be.

I wanted to ask about the corals. We associate corals with the Great Barrier Reef in Australia and the Bahamas and places like that, but we don't think of corals much here in Canada. Could you just comment briefly on your experience with deep corals and how common are these areas and so on?

Ms. Susan Gass: Deep sea corals are found all over the world. The highest concentrations are off Norway. We do have corals off both coasts, Atlantic Canada and western Canada, and we don't know anything about the Arctic yet.

There have been reports that a lot of damage was done to corals—and I don't know if I can get these dates right—in the 1960s and 1970s when there was a lot of trawling going on. We don't know how much is remaining and which areas have been damaged, but there was a study done by the Ecology Action Centre in 1997 by Heather Breeze. The study used local fishermen's knowledge to map the areas where the fishermen knew the corals were. That might be an interesting study for you to look at.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

The Chair: In fact, we had a witness in...where, Peter?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Eastern Passage.

The Chair: Peter can give you the name, James. She had a very interesting presentation on corals and she had a lot of them there.

Joanne, you wanted to add something?

• 2240

Ms. Joanne Weiss: Actually, we're doing a proposal for the protection of that site you're talking about in Eastern Passage with that group you were just referring to.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you. That's good information.

I have one last question, Helen.

In your presentation, in the middle paragraph you were talking about the need for three panellists with a marine biological background. You said it might be appropriate to include her as one of the panellists. Are you talking about the current chair of the Canada-Nova Scotia—

Ms. Helen Lofgren: Yes, I was.

I said ideally, they would all three have that. But in fairness to her—because I understand she's a capable person—it would perhaps be all right to have one. But I think there needs to be a majority with a marine biological background. It's not a personal statement about this person. It is—

The Chair: No. I just wanted to be clear who you meant.

Ms. Helen Lofgren: Yes.

The Chair: All right.

Thank you very much, all three, for your presentation.

Committee members, it has been a fairly long day, and I'll just inform you that we have to be packed, in the lobby, ready to go, fit and foddered by 7 o'clock in the morning.

Thank you to the staff, who have also put in a long day. We thank you for your help.

The meeting is adjourned.