FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 31, 2001

• 0912

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): Colleagues, we will call the meeting to order.

The order of the day is pursuant to section 52 of the Oceans Act, a review of the act.

When we had our hearings in Halifax, there was a fair bit of discussion on the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. We said we'd bring a witness before the committee with respect to that board and the Public Review Commission. So this morning we have with us, by video conference, Teresa MacNeil, who is the commissioner for the Public Review Commission.

We will turn it over to you, Teresa, for I believe a short presentation, and then we will go to questions. Welcome from afar—but you are in a good end of the country.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil (Commissioner, Public Review Commission): Yes, of course.

The Chair: The floor is yours.

[Technical Difficulty—Editor]

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Before I get going, I want you to know that I'm getting feedback, and we can do nothing about it. So every time I speak, I hear what I said about two seconds later.

The Chair: That's not good. It's working all right on our end.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: You're not getting my feedback?

The Chair: No.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Good.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was a little reluctant and I didn't quite understand why I should appear, mainly because I was appointed this winter to be the commissioner for public hearings, and of course we've not called any public hearings.

The Chair: Is there anything you can do about that? It's at the other end.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Perhaps if I speak one sentence at a time. We don't have a technician.

The Chair: Are there technicians at your end working on this, Teresa?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: No.

[Technical Difficulty—Editor]

• 0915

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: What I wanted to say is that we just opened an office here in Sydney to accommodate information-giving until such time....

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Because I have not been engaged in any public hearings as yet, I see myself as simply a conduit for providing information about gas and oil developments and what has been the effect elsewhere, and until we have actual hearings there is very little for me to say beyond the terms of reference that I have been given.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, when I was talking with Mr. Chaplin, I said all I could really provide for you were the terms of reference that I was given. Would you like me then to refer to that, which has been sent to you, so you can see how we are going to proceed? Pages 2 and 3 are the most pertinent ones.

The Chair: We have those, Ms. MacNeil. If you want to overview them, you could.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: I would like to.

The Chair: A number of committee members have some fairly strong concerns about the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and its responsibilities, and decisions it may or may not make that affect the inshore fishery in the gulf as well as other areas. I think when we get into the discussion you will hear some of those concerns, which might also be useful for you in terms of your review.

Perhaps you could first overview the terms of reference that have been given to you, and then we'll turn to a discussion and you can hear our concerns, which really come to us through fishermen and other organizations we've met with.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: The main things we're to look at are the effects of potential—I think that's a very key word “potential”—exploration and drilling in these three licensed areas off Cape Breton. We would look at the effect on socio-economic matters in this region; we would look at the effects on the ecosystem; and we would also try to hear ways of mitigating some of the negatives effects that are brought to us.

• 0920

So short of actually holding the public hearings, I really am in the position of trying to hear what the problems are and to find if there are ways to mitigate some of them. That's the process we can go through, beginning with the identification of issues in the early fall, in order to adhere as much as we can to the schedule. We'll then send some of these issues out, and the actual public hearings are scheduled to go on throughout the month of January.

If I have been appointed by the Nova Scotia offshore development board, I am not part of that organization; I'm independent of that. And I really think that's a very important point—for me it is. So without going into details, because I expect members of the committee have the examples of socio-economic.... Are you still hearing me?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Oh that's good, I can't hear you now.

The Chair: We had difficulty hearing you for a while, but we're picking it up in bits and pieces.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Is there anything you'd like me to repeat.

A voice: The whole thing.

The Chair: Basically, you gave an overview of the effects and the potential of the oil and gas exploration and drilling activities, the socio-economic impacts, a bit about how you would deal with trying to mitigate the effects. If you've anything more you want to add, add it, or we can turn to questions.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: I would add only that I am not a technician at all, my field is adult education, as it has been all through my life, and community economic development. My aspiration is that as I listen to people, I will try very much to see if they can talk to each other on this whole mitigation aspect. It's a dream that I'm going to carry through to the end, because I would like very much for as much information to get out as possible, and through our office here we will try to do that and to enable people to get as much information as possible. We are not in a position to pay money to groups to do research, but we'll do our best to provide material.

The Chair: Okay, thank you. For clarification, before we go to questions, you said the hearings would begin in January 2002?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Correct. There is a session in the fall, a period from September 24 until October 5, when we hear publicly the issues people are seeing, whether that's from industry, from fishery, from tourism, from environment, the general public. We will hear what they consider to be the issues and we will give out as much information as we can from what we are currently collecting and making available to groups and individuals. Then we will take the issues we hear and try to summarize them in a form that's somewhat intelligible, so that groups can have them as preparation for the actual public hearings, which begin January 7 and conclude January 31, in order to enable the commission to report by March 29, 2002.

The Chair: Okay.

John Cummins of the Canadian Alliance, the floor is yours.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Ms. MacNeil. I presume you can hear me.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Yes I can.

• 0925

Mr. John Cummins: Good.

I want to start by saying that I don't doubt your commitment to an open and fair process, but there are concerns that have been expressed to this committee and we, as individuals, have received. In a sense, the questions I'm going to ask you might be better asked of others, perhaps the people who appointed you, but they're not here, you are. So I will ask you these questions. Perhaps you would answer them as best you can, or perhaps you can refer them on.

There is a concern that your commission is not independent, that it was set up by the offshore board that allowed for the seismic testing, the same board that issued the licence. The public has some concern about this issue of independence. I know you addressed it in your remarks, but I wonder if you could elaborate on that.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: I can only tell you what I know, that I was asked if I was interested and so were others. I am aware of a couple of other people who were asked to submit their names and CVs if they had an interest in this role. I did that, and then, some time later, I received a call indicating that they were interested in interviewing me at the board. I appeared before the chair and the executive director. Then I was informed that I was appointed. That's the whole story.

My background, I think, has to speak for itself in relation to independence, but then one is always subject, I suppose, to suspicion on that. I think I have considerable independence, economically, politically, and socially, but that's my view, of course.

Mr. John Cummins: To be a little bit more specific, some of the concerns relate to the fact that speakers can only make presentations for 20 minutes, the suggestion being that it might take some people who are concerned that long just to lay their credentials on the table. A 20-minute presentation essentially prevents experts from speaking. The hearings are almost an assembly line if you're just allowing 20 minutes, yet that's in your terms of reference.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: That is something about which I have some thoughts. Obviously, it is important to hear what people say. It is also important that they have sufficient information and that they have time to present this. I don't see that a 20-minute limit is set in stone. In fact, I am very much in favour of giving people an opportunity to say what they have to say. We would have to adjust it if that's in fact the case, I agree. However, there's a finite period in which we have to function, and we would probably be wise not to give people a day or something like that—there's some scope for reason here—but I would say a 20-minute limit should not be a block.

Mr. John Cummins: In similar circumstances recently in Australia, an environmental assessment was triggered when there was some discussion about conducting seismic testing in an area referred to as the Townsville Trough. The Australian Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act actually triggered this. It suggests that there's going to be a very rigorous assessment of the proposal in relation to its impact on the marine environment. Again there's some concern that the investigation you may conduct may not be as rigorous as that which the Australians are conducting, of a kind many feel should be conducted in this country.

• 0930

What would your comment be on that?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Given my terms of reference, I think you are correct, there would be no environmental assessment as part of this public hearing process. This is what it says, as far as I am concerned. It is a public hearing process. If that public hearing ends up calling for environmental assessment with sufficient evidence provided, that's indeed a priority, I would wager. You have to take this in the spirit in which I am saying it. I have no idea what the calls are going to be for, but in the event that were a dominant concern and we couldn't get over that obstacle, that would have to be addressed in the recommendations from the Public Hearing Commission.

Mr. John Cummins: So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that you are not conducting an environmental assessment, you're merely conducting public hearings, and that your recommendations could include a recommendation for a full-blown environmental assessment. Is that correct?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Yes, given what comes through the public hearings—I hope you appreciate that. I construct that myself, as I have said a few times. I would be a judge, if you will—small “j”—of whether or not that would be a priority, given what I have heard. I've given a lot of attention to that mitigation point that I emphasized at the beginning.

Mr. John Cummins: I find your remarks encouraging. I'm sure many people out there will be encouraged by that comment as well.

When you're conducting these hearings, then, you will be considering the effects of the economic risks to fishermen if this activity is allowed to proceed. I understand that would be part of your consideration as well, would it?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: It would, of course, given, again, the presentations and the evidence and very good and thorough discussion of and by all sides.

Mr. John Cummins: To get back to this environmental assessment issue, is it your intention to review some of the studies that have been done on the environmental impact of such a process, of this seismic activity?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Yes, it is. We have gathered in the past two months, since well into the middle of March, and are gathering as much information as we can regarding material, institutions, enterprises, whether here, in Europe, or wherever. We have a website established, we have an office established, we have e-mail, all possible contacts for people to have access to any material we can gather relating to this issue.

Mr. John Cummins: Certainly, your intentions seem to be very good, Ms. MacNeil. Have you been provided with adequate resources, the funding and the staffing to complete the task?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: At the moment I believe they are not sufficient, and I want to explain this. When I was appointed, I was to have this report done by December 31. Because of response to the terms of reference from various groups, they asked for that period to be extended. When it was extended to the end of March, it goes without saying we needed an extension in the original budget. I have been told that as soon as I am able to estimate what that requirement would be, I should present it. So I have no reason at this time to think that we do not have an adequate budget.

Mr. John Cummins: Could you give some indication of the staffing you have, the type of people you'll be able to hire?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: At the moment we have one staff person, who is the manager of the office that was established immediately following the announcement of my role. She is Joan McInnis, and she is actually the only other person in the room with me. She is a very experienced executive assistant, whom I have seconded from another organization for one year.

• 0935

She has gathered and will continue to gather all the data for the information we would want to share. She has posted notices in all the newspapers and with all the media in the area trying to indicate where we are located and inviting people, if there's information they need, to take care of that.

There are two other people with whom I'm currently negotiating. They would be part of a four-member secretariat, I being one of them, in the sense that I will be working with them closely to make sure we're getting this done properly, while Joan McInnis would be the fourth. One has a strong environmental background—he lives in Pictou county, I might say for Mr. Easter's benefit. He would see where the proximity of the Northumberland Strait is important in all of this. He has a fairly strong biology background. He's also been involved before with one of the sets of public hearings concerning, I believe, Sable. The other person has a background in geology and engineering. He lives in Baddeck, Nova Scotia, and is very interested in this whole process. He would serve more as a technical person, in that when we have information requirements or requirements for expertise, he's the point person to follow up and make sure we get that.

The Chair: It seems you're missing a fish person. You say you have someone with a strong environmental background with some biological experience, but it seems to me you're missing someone with a strong fisheries background, a fisheries biologist, someone who knows lobster, shellfish, and finfish, to make an effective assessment. Do you not see that as a shortcoming?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: I really wasn't looking at these two other resource people for a particular orientation. We have no one there on tourism; we have no one there from the oil industry. I was trying to find some sort of—excuse the term, but it's my background—more comprehensive academic approach to it, people who could recognize when it's a fishery-related problem and know that we have to work on that, as distinct from having a group where each has a particular interest area as their specialty. So I thought we would take a more comprehensive approach with this group of four, and then we have in our budget room to pay people when we need specialist expertise.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. MacNeil.

I turn to Madame Tremblay with the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): In the order of reference, it states that you are to deal with exploration permits 2364, 2365 and 2368. When we went to the Maritimes two weeks ago, we were shown a map with offshore regions coloured in red, green and blue, some of which were very close to Cape Breton. Do you intend to study all the attributed zones or will you limit yourself to permits 2364, 2365 and 2368?

[English]

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: It is limited to those three parcels that are offshore Cape Breton.

The Chair: Could you roll that answer by me again?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: There are three parcels, three licences, and they are offshore Cape Breton, one on the west side and the other two on the east to southeast side. Those are the only three we are concerned about. So all the hearings will be around the effects of the potential exploration and drilling of those three parcels.

• 0940

The Chair: Thank you very much. That's good information for us to know. I didn't realize that.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I wanted to be sure I had understood correctly. You said that the precise location of these three zones was to the east, offshore...

[English]

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: On the western coast of Cape Breton, in the area of the Northumberland Strait, as you come around toward the east and south—it's called the Sydney bight area, generally off the Sydney area—there are two parcels.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Today, many bills are intended to create areas which would come under Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, or Heritage Canada, in order to protect marine areas. Do you intend to concern yourself with this aspect during your work, during the course of your hearings? Will you try to find out if these development or exploration permits will be compatible with the protected areas that we want to set up?

[English]

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Only to the extent that there is room in our hearings.... In fact, one of the good features of delaying the hearings for a three-month period is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is conducting a regional advisory process, which I understand will bring us a lot of information about activity and what is present in those zones generally, in terms of fish.

We will be able to hear from them in our process, but if we keep holding to the point that this is about hearings only and not assessment per se, whatever they bring forward will be brought into the whole public discussion and will affect the results—our recommendations.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like to ask you one final question. Do you know why your terms of reference are limited to the three areas at issue in your document? Why was your study limited to these three areas?

[English]

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: I do not know. Because I live in Cape Breton, when I was told that was where the exclusive emphasis would be, it interested me very much. I didn't ask the question and I do not know.

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Tremblay.

Ms. MacNeil, I think we were of the opinion the review was bigger than that, but in any event that's fine. I can see where we will have to demand that the chair of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board come before this committee.

Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much. We missed some of what you told us at the beginning. Can you tell us when you were appointed to this position?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: I was appointed in February, to take effect June 1, but we had to get an office in place and get things organized. Although I have not been working directly on a day-to-day basis, we have established an office and are getting a lot of information gathered. We're getting our own heads around what we need to do, and I'm getting the secretariat formed.

I am really starting seriously now. We're calling for the issues to be identified and for us to give information at the first public hearings, beginning September 24 to October 5.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: This year.

• 0945

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Then we will summarize the results of those issues and do more precise terms of reference for the general public hearings, beginning January 7 and extending to January 31, 2002. Then I will be responsible for writing the report on those public hearings.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

You mentioned you have no clue why they picked up only those three areas for you to study. Can you make an effort to find out why you were asked to do only three sections and ignore the other 30 or so?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: I am unable to answer that question. That would have to be asked of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. I have been given the mandate we've been talking about, and what's behind it further than this, I do not know.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Would you find that out for us?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Could I find that out for you?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes.

The Chair: I think, Sarkis, just to interrupt Ms. MacNeil—

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: I suppose I could, but I would really prefer it to come directly from the board.

The Chair: I don't think it's your responsibility to find that out. It's our responsibility to find out from the board, and we will ask that question. It's an unfair request, really.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Chairman, when we were there we saw about 35 zones like that. I'm surprised they created a commission like this and asked them to look at only three. I don't know what the logic is.

The Chair: I don't want to get into a debate here, but the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board has basically set out these terms of reference, and we should ask your question of them. That's not Ms. MacNeil's responsibility. We will ask that question either in writing or directly to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay. Can I follow with another question?

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

Ms. MacNeil, you said it is your prerogative to call for an environmental assessment. Am I right?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: No. I'm glad to have an opportunity to say this again. I'm dealing only with public hearings and with seeing to it that people have enough information and these things are properly discussed. If, in the process of the public hearings, it is apparent that we need to go forward with an environmental assessment, I can only make that recommendation. It is not something I can do. I can make that recommendation. My report will go to the Minister of Natural Resources, the minister in Nova Scotia responsible for offshore petroleum development, and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. What they do with what I recommend is up to them.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay. Thank you very much.

The Chair: They're colleagues of yours, Sarkis.

Mr. Cummins is first.

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

I think the difficulty here, as I listen to you, Ms. MacNeil, is that the issue is fish, not tourism, or oil and gas exploration. I appreciate the fact that you need some generalists on staff, to have the ability to look at things and give a good overview, but the issue is fish. I am concerned that you don't have someone on your staff, permanently, with a good fish background.

On the information you suggest you're collecting, I assume it would contain information that has been published in Canadian journals. For example, I refer you to the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences and an article that appeared back in 1996. That's a publication associated with the National Research Council here.

They reported on an article from Norway on the effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod and haddock. In the abstract of the article, they tested seven days before the seismic shooting, five days during the seismic shooting, and five days after. They found that seismic shooting severely affected distribution, local abundance, and catch rates in the entire area. The long-term effects are not contained in this study.

• 0950

What I'm saying to you is that there's information out there on the impacts of seismic shooting on fish that I think, if you're going to be able to do the job that should be done, would require someone with a good biology background, a good background in fish—both finfish and shellfish—to assess this material adequately.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Mr. Cummins, I appreciate your point very well. One member of the secretariat, whom I mentioned, has a geological and engineering background. His interest in the seismic effect upon fish is a very strong one. I spent a whole day with him last week going over all of this. It is material we're gathering, not just from Canada but from wherever we can find it where it has been an issue, particularly in the North Sea. He is watching that closely.

I have to say, Mr. Cummins, that yes, of course, the fishery has a huge interest in all of this. But when you live here, you are aware of the socio-economic interest of other groups. For example, I am constantly being approached by the boards of trade—they have a very high concern about this—by tourism people, and by environmentalists. So yes, the fishery is hugely important and I would like to think we're not going to make any small case of that. We will be taking that very seriously.

I have some confidence that the person I'm working with now is able to get the big picture. He has worked in South America and in Europe. If he isn't, then we'll just have to get someone who is.

I appreciate what you say and I'll probably take it much more seriously because you said it. Because it is not all of Nova Scotia, but just this area working on it, I think we'll be able to approach the thing well. We will certainly be hearing from fisheries groups. I already have. But I'm not about to deal with anything other than in public on specific matters, because this is about public hearings.

I don't know what else to say except that it is a very important aspect of the whole scene, of course.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. MacNeil. We have one clarification.

Mr. John Cummins: I appreciate what you're saying, and my suggestion is simply a friendly suggestion. I think if you wish to satisfy your critics, it might be helpful if you took serious consideration of my suggestion.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Thank you very much. I will.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Ms. MacNeil. I live in Fall River, Nova Scotia, so I know the area you are in very well.

I want to congratulate you on your appointment, first of all. Is it not true that you were appointed by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: No, I'm appointed by both governments. I received the letter of appointment according to both the federal and provincial public inquiries acts. I have also received appointments from both levels of government. I have received the one officially from Nova Scotia. I have not yet received the one officially from the Government of Canada.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Correct me if I'm wrong. Do you have a background in any aspect of the fishery at all in terms of expertise?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: No, I really do not. I must say that. Nor do I have a background in environment or in petroleum. I would like to tell you a little about my background if it would help.

I have been a professor of adult education at St. Francis Xavier University for more than 30 years. During that time I was the director of the extension department of that university for 12 years. I have worked in fishing communities through adult education programs, through programs for the fisheries, through research development projects—that sort of thing.

• 0955

No, I have never been a fisherman. I lived for 25 years in a fishing community on the Northumberland Straight, about 20 miles from Antigonish, between Antigonish and Port Hawkesbury. So I feel I know the community quite well. And I will add that I have been involved in local economic development programs as an educator in communities throughout northeastern Nova Scotia.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam, I couldn't help but notice in your references to people who are with you that there wasn't anyone from the aboriginal community assisting you to address aboriginal concerns. As you know, they play an extremely important role in whatever public hearings are going on. I couldn't help but notice that “aboriginal” is not even mentioned in your points of reference. Can you explain why that would be?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: I can't explain why it's not in the terms of reference, but I will tell you that I have heard already from the aboriginal community. I will make a definite point of seeing to it that in all of our information distribution and notices it is included as a very significant part of the public. As you know, in this region, it is.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: This is my last question for you, Madam. An awful lot of the fishermen in the communities in those three provinces are very concerned with the fact that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board granted the leases to corridor resources prior to any environmental impact study being done. Those leases have already been issued and now we're having the public hearings afterwards. So it's the cart before the horse syndrome. And the perception—this is what they're telling me—of your commission is that it's an afterthought. You'll do a report just to appease everybody, but those leases will still go on and the seismic work will still happen.

Can you assure the communities or our committee that indeed your recommendations will definitely take the interests of the fishing community to heart?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: I can assure you of that. I can assure you it will take into account the interests of any group that is going to make a case that can be considered by the commission. It will be considered.

Now, whether or not recommendations will be considered, that's beyond me. As I answered Mr. Cummins previously, there are business interests, environmental interests, a fisheries interest, the aboriginal interests, which I think related mostly to the fishery. One has to take those interests into account.

I think it's a nice feature—I mean, people might think you were an idiot for taking on something like this—to have that discussion publicly between the people who have those interests. They're very key interests. This fishery has been here before and it'll be here after—I would like to think—and so it has to be an important consideration. The interests of aboriginal people in the fishery right now are, as everyone knows, very high. And they have to be part of the mix.

Now, what we will do with it in the end.... Certainly we will take it into account. I have no idea what the recommendations would look like, because I don't know what the issues are yet. And if you take it from the point of view of few—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Your recommendations, of course, will not be binding, will they?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: According to the terms of reference, it's advisory.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Ms. MacNeil. I have just a few technical questions, which I hope you can help me with. We've been provided with your terms of reference. They're taken from the website of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. First of all, did you have any input at all in this document?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Personally, no. But I want to tell you about the process. When I was interviewed, there was a draft terms of reference. Part of the process, they told me, would be that the Offshore Petroleum Board would post those terms of reference for—I think it was—a 45-day period to get a response to the terms. They received about 35 to 36 sets of responses. I have seen all of those responses. And I might say, relative to the previous speaker, one of them was from the aboriginal community. But various groups responded.

• 1000

As a result of those reactions to the draft terms of reference, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board issued this set, which you have before you. I had no part in that because my point was to take the mandate I was given. It was up to these groups to move on.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Do I understand it then that these terms of reference were issued before you were appointed?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: No, the draft was issued before I was appointed. I was appointed and then they called for revisions in the draft. But I was not acting as the commissioner, because you see I'm a commissioner of public hearings. So they received the response and they issued then this revised set of terms of reference.

I will revise those terms of reference again after we have this issues and information session September 24 to October 5. It says in here that I'm free to do that.

Mr. Tom Wappel: All right. Just on that point, under the definitions you are defined to be the person appointed pursuant to paragraph 44(2)(b) of the accord acts. The accord acts are defined as two separate acts.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Yes.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I'm a little confused. Does that mean that the two acts mirror each other so that paragraph 44(2)(b) of each of the two acts is exactly the same? The definition appointing you says it refers to paragraph 44(2)(b) of the accord acts. Yet there are two acts. So are there two paragraphs 44(2)(b), each identical in each act?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: I'm unable to answer you. I will have to find out and get back to you.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Okay. I'm sure it's nothing. I just find it interesting that they would be the exact paragraph.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: That's a good question.

Mr. Tom Wappel: The second thing I notice is in paragraph 2(d) of schedule A, “Procedures for Public Meetings”, it reads: “The Commissioner has the discretion to modify or waive these procedures where, in her opinion....” That clearly means you. That's not a general term. Since you were appointed before this was final, did you personally have any input into this document, and if not, why not?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: I was not asked, number one, but I didn't ask to have it either. I took the view that the original terms of reference given to me were relatively okay with me and that they were going to be open to modification based on responses from the public. I would take then what the board gave me. I did not take part in it at all.

That “her”—the pronoun there—is because I was already appointed by the time the second issue came out.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wappel.

Mr. Keddy.

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

Thank you, Ms. MacNeil, for appearing today. I have a couple of points and then maybe one or two questions.

To begin with, there's a lot of discussion here about the staking map for offshore Nova Scotia in particular. There seems to be an answer to Sarkis' question. The reason the areas are picked is the inshore and offshore fishery. That's a very simple question. We might as well just level that out right now. There's an inshore and an offshore fishery. That's the difference—two totally different fisheries going on.

I break this down into slightly different areas than some of my colleagues have. These are public hearings and that's fine, but that's all it is.

The other question was asked about environmental assessment. You stake your area first. You do your environmental assessment second. That's the way it's done on land. That's the way it's done on water. That's the way it's done in every single environment issue we deal with in Canada. First you have your project; second you do your assessment. Maybe that's the cart before the horse, but that's the way we do it. If we're proposing to change that, then we change it for everything, I would expect—municipal, sewage, the whole bit.

• 1005

It's been set up, you said, with the federal-provincial public hearings act. We're getting a lot of questions here that seem to be environmentally based, but to me this is an issue where we have a public hearing, and what comes out of the public hearing will be some recommendations on how we proceed with the offshore.

Our interest in this, as a committee, should be in respect to fish. I think Mr. Cummins said that earlier. We're the fisheries committee. Part of the purview is what's the effect on the ecosystem. How are any of those potential impacts going to be mitigated? What are we going to do about that? To me, those are the questions. You break that down under “Effects on the Ecosystem”, items i and ii—the effects of exploration and drilling activities, including discharges on finfish and everything that could possibly be affected by that.

I don't have a problem with that. I agree with part (b). And I understand your background in socio-economic impact, through your association with St. Francis Xavier University.

The thing I don't see here in the mitigation of impacts, the thing I've heard fishermen continually say, is zero discharge from a drilling rig. Any impact of seismic testing is very short lived, but impacts from any long-term effluent going into the water can be more serious. I just don't see how that's going to be addressed under item ii, or if it's going to be separate.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: I expect it will be addressed under item ii, because we're talking about the effects of exploration and drilling. So we have to take into account what the state of knowledge is at the moment with respect to the effects of drilling. What are the emissions? What's the danger? What's the risk? I cannot see how we couldn't do that.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Just to expand on that, I think we have enough information from the last 50 years of drilling offshore in North America that the risk always comes down to rig discharge. So if you have a policy of zero discharge and the technology is already there, then we need to look at other risks.

There's one exception that I take here, and that is impact on the tourism industry, because when we start worrying about the viewscapes, what people see on the water, then we'll also start worrying about seeing fishing buoys, salmon cages, and fishing activity taking place. I have a serious concern that people might miss out on the socio-economic impact of offshore revenues because they are worried about the short-term effects on tourism.

Do you have a comment on that?

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: We even have New Yorkers with summer homes along the Cabot Trail who are going to be appearing to talk about the effect on the viewplane.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I represent the south shore of Nova Scotia and I get calls all the time from residents—who are not permanent residents—who are worried about their viewscape with fishing buoys. When we start worrying about that interest, it's not just the oilfield that's being impacted, it's also the inshore fishery.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Perhaps, as a positive way of looking at it, maybe they'll learn, in the process of some of these hearings, that there are other dimensions to all of this.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

The Chair: Gerald, I've given you lots of time.

Mr. Cummins, do you have any more?

Okay, Monsieur Roy. Are there any more questions over here?

It looks like we've run out of questions, Ms. MacNeil.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Well, I've enjoyed these questions, and there are a couple of points that I need to follow up on. There's the small question, I suppose, with respect to the two acts. And I will think about the suggestion with respect to the fisheries specialist.

• 1010

Thank you very much for your interest in this. I was worried at the beginning because I had only the terms of reference to work with, yet we seem to have mined quite a bit from them.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We will be following up as well. Thank you for taking the time to appear before us.

Ms. Teresa MacNeil: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

There is a view that before too long the House may adjourn for the summer.

Tuesday, we were going to try to deal with an overview of reports, I believe. Alan is working on that, is that correct?

Mr. Alan Nixon (Committee Researcher): I am working on that. I'm not sure it's going to be possible to have a draft of an overview of the Oceans Act by that time. I haven't completed drafting it yet, and in any case, even if it were ready by noon today, the earliest it could be ready for distribution would probably be Tuesday morning. I still have a considerable amount of work to do on that.

The Chair: Okay. We'll have to pace that as it goes.

On Thursday of next week, if the committee still desires, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs has agreed to come before the committee at 9 o'clock. Is that still the desire of the committee?

Okay.

We've handed out—and I don't have one—a copy of a letter that Dominic and I drafted on the discussions we had with Moncton, Halifax, and Ottawa on the situation in the gulf region. Are there any questions or discussions on that?

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have quickly gone through the document that was just given to us. If I understand correctly, the announcement regarding the creation of the Gulf region was made on October 30, 1998. Did I understand correctly? That is my first question.

My second question is the following: could you explain to me exactly what is included in the Gulf region? When we were in the Maritimes, we were told that the ecosystem is the same as that of the south shore of the Gaspé, the Gaspé Peninsula. When we talk about the Gulf region, does that include the south shore of the Gaspé or not?

My third question is the following: If the Gulf area exists, with or without part of Quebec, what happens to the fish quotas for that region? Will they be completely and exclusively allocated to the Maritimes? What is the impact of including or not including the south shore of the peninsula into the Gulf area? I have asked my three questions.

[English]

The Chair: Dominic, do you want to answer those questions?

In terms of the quotas, for sure the quotas are not impacted. That's a decision that's made overall in terms of allocations by the ministry. But regarding the first two, Dominic, do you want to...?

[Translation]

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Tremblay, you are quite right. On October 30, 1998, Mr. Anderson more or less cancelled the transfer of jobs and management authority to Halifax. In a way, one could say that he recreated the Gulf region in Moncton. The chairman and I feel that he did 80% of the job. What you have before you represents the 20% that, we feel, remained to be done. On October 30, he at least assured the people of Moncton that they were not going to lose everything to Halifax. He put an end to the transfer, and repatriated a good part of management to Moncton.

• 1015

I liked the questions that you asked concerning the boundaries in Moncton very much. If memory serves me well, the witnesses explained to us that it was a question of political decisions taken 20 years ago. The underlying idea in 1981 concerned the existence of an ecosystem which included, as you have said, part of Quebec and the west coast of Newfoundland, in the area of Corner Brook. When Mr. Crosbie was minister, he reclaimed Corner Brook for the Newfoundland region and Mr. de Bané created the Laurentian region.

The chairman and I have no intention of dealing with these issues, and there is no indication that the government is ready to do so either. These are decisions that we will have to live with.

When we talk about the Gulf region, we should say the southern Gulf, to be precise. In the past, this region was called the Gulf, as we heard in Moncton. Now, it is a question mainly of the southern part of the Gulf.

We do not want to change anything. Mr. Dhaliwal was very clear on the subject. This is not an issue that he is prepared to study. As Mr. Easter said, we are not taking on the issue of quotas. These issues come under the minister responsible for advisory committees in Ottawa. If I understood what the bureaucrats in Ottawa and in Moncton said correctly, there is a shared responsibility for coordination. Sometimes, it is the Laurentian region office that takes care of this, and sometimes it is the Gulf region office that does so, because there are stocks that straddle both regions. The mandate regarding coordination will therefore stay in place. We are not touching that at all.

Finally, we are not taking anything away from either the Laurentian region or the Newfoundland region. We are simply trying to improve the relationship between Halifax and Moncton. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you. It's there for your information.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You guys have made a number of recommendations here, and I assume that's going directly to the minister?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So this is a paper that the two of you have done, and you've brought it to the committee just for our information?

The Chair: That's right.

An hon. member: You don't want any information from the committee?

The Chair: If the committee decides that it would be better than it was, I suppose so.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I appreciate your doing it, but to me, if we were going to do a study like this, it should have been a committee study. But we may not have got unanimity on that. So I'm fine with looking at it. I've got two issues.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Chair, if I can, that's a good point, Mr. Keddy. I am a new member here and I didn't know the process, but the original motion was that that committee—

The Chair: Allocated Dominic and I to address it.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: —ask the minister to allow Wayne and me to meet with officials, which he did. We were careful that it not be a formal committee process. It's a personal interest that I've had and Wayne has had.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And I'm very respectful of the fact that this is hometown stuff. The issue that bothers me, quite frankly, is that if we start allocating funds—and there are recommendations for allocations—and we do what the government has done in every single other area, not increase the budget for that—and there's no discussion here that the budget should be increased—then you're taking that big block of funding and you lose your crossover from funding allocations in the other areas, whether that's the Halifax area, the Charlottetown area, or the Moncton area. It seems to me the issue here is that we need more funding to do this type of thing throughout the gulf region, throughout Atlantic Canada, and provide the services. If there's an issue in respect of services in both official languages, we shouldn't have to make that recommendation; that should already be made. We're losing something here. I'm not sure why.

• 1020

The Chair: I guess, Gerald, one of the big areas, in respect of what's been happening over the last several years, almost a bleeding down of—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We've seen it everywhere.

The Chair: Yes, but in particular within the Moncton jurisdiction, which is somewhat different, in that in the whole north shore area you require bilingual services, and especially French. There's been a bleeding down of that, and that's the recommendation here, to stop that erosion. It's more localized.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I can very easily support that recommendation, Mr. Chair, that's not a problem. To give the gulf region a real property sector, separate from the Maritimes region, with all gulf staff in this program reporting to the gulf, I think probably most of the committee is not in disagreement with that, but I may not be in agreement with it if it means you take the budget that we have now, which is not adequate, and try to create two separate bureaucracies out of that, because it will cost more money.

Mr. Dominic Leblanc: Mr. Chairman, if I can, Mr. Keddy's point is very accurate. I share his view entirely. What I think we're saying is that if you look proportionately—

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Dominic Leblanc: Let's say, for example, national headquarters in Ottawa for the implementation of the Oceans Act allocated x million dollars. With the fusion of these two offices, that money was staying entirely in Halifax. So yes, there is probably a lack of money in the Maritimes region, but proportionately, as the chairman said, the problem is considerably worse in the gulf region. What we're asking is that with whatever new money is available for some of these programs, the department allocate a proportionate share for the work that needs to be done. It's not going to solve the overall problem that nobody has enough money and if everybody's poor, some are poorer than others.

Our position has been very clear, that this exercise should not require DFO. There's no new money. Nobody's losing a job, no jobs are being transferred. For example, the small craft harbours program for the whole Maritimes region is currently run out of Moncton, but all the staff there report to the director in Halifax. If the gulf region has a particular priority in a given year, they have zero budgetary flexibility, because it's all in Halifax. What we're saying is, to split it proportionately might mean everybody's poor, but at least they're equally poor.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm not saying there may not be some validity in that statement, Dominic, but I don't have any information that tells me that statement is correct. Since headquarters changed to Halifax, there's no more service in the Halifax jurisdiction. The only difference I can see is that corporate headquarters is there. For instance, there's no better service in southwestern Nova Scotia, in 4X, there's no better service in Sydney bight, but we have downsized the fishery. We've moved our head bureaucrat and we've downsized our bureaucracy as well, and that's where the cost saving came in. Then, when that wasn't enough, we started bleeding the regions. I think that's a fair statement, but I don't have any evidence to tell me that the gulf region was bled more severely than southwestern Nova Scotia or any other region.

So here we have that recommendation going to the minister to divide allocation of assets, to put corporate headquarters back in the gulf region, which means you have two effective people now, and that's double the salary. I don't disagree with the premise, but if we don't include extra budget for that, I would disagree, because I don't think we can afford it.

Mr. John Cummins: Could I just ask, what do you want to do with this?

The Chair: We, as MPs, are going to give it to the minister.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: If I understood correctly [Editor's note: Inaudible]

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: We agree, then, that you and Dominic will prepare this—

The Chair: Sarkis, Madame Tremblay has the floor.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: That's exactly what we're doing, so I don't know what the point is.

• 1025

The Chair: There's no problem. We're just having a discussion.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: If I understood correctly, you were given a mandate to do this job. You are doing so and we are kept abreast of the work. On the other hand, Mr. Keddy sees money leaving Halifax for Moncton and this upsets and troubles him.

[English]

The Chair: There's no money leaving Halifax for Moncton.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Both, of course.

[English]

The Chair: There's just a little bit—

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Half a million.

[Translation]

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: You are quite right.

[English]

The Chair: —in terms of the responsibilities that are supposed to be in Moncton.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: That half a million was money that should have followed the announcement of October 30 and didn't. A number of management responsibilities were transferred on October 30, but for the reasons Mr. Keddy outlined, the regional director in Halifax was short of money. He transferred management responsibilities, but kept the money. It's a bit like the movie Jerry Maguire—show us the money. Well, he has the money. Mr. Keddy's point is that he has seen no better service in parts of Nova Scotia, and I believe him. We've seen considerably less service.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: And he believes you.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: That's right.

On the coast guard—and this is something the chairman and I learned—this committee knows, and I learned a lot at this committee, about some the problems with the coast guard. The coast guard represents a fairly significant portion of the budget. The gulf region has zero coast guard services. All of them are delivered from Halifax. So the regional director in Halifax has massively more flexibility. We heard one evening in Halifax that the regional director can take money from the coast guard or harbours and allocate it to oceans or some science.

The Moncton office has no coast guard budget and no small craft harbours budget. Somebody is playing with their hands tied behind their back, and the other person also has their ankles shackled. It's a straitjacket. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Keddy, if the minister decides to accept some of these and can transfer money from Ottawa, that would be better for everybody. Far be it from us to tell him where he should find the money. We're just saying there should be a proportionate share between the two.

The Chair: Dominic, I think we're basically saying the minister announced it in 1998, and the bureaucracy, for whatever reason, didn't quite follow it the way they were supposed to. We're saying, get back to what the original announcement was, so it's followed the way it's supposed to be followed.

Did the buoys ever get to Miramichi, talking about coast guard? Are they still in Charlottetown harbour?

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: My understanding is that there's still a nice collection of

[Translation]

buoy on the dock at Charlottetown.

[English]

The Chair: The fishing season will soon be over.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Do you want a motion or something to accept that report?

The Chair: I don't think we need a motion.

On Norway and Scotland, in terms of talking to people, nobody will be able to go prior to the House reopening. You can make a motion, if you like, to give us the authority to move ahead on that and see that it is possible, but I can't see it being possible. If you want to give us the flexibility to try to deal with it over the summer, so it's ready to go—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can I make a suggestion?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can we consider travelling from September 17 to September 28?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The House of Commons comes back on that date, that does not make any sense.

[English]

The Chair: You had a problem with that, didn't you Madame Tremblay? The only way I would see the committee travelling to Norway and Scotland is with the key members of the committee who have been involved in this. They all have to be able to go, unless it's extraordinary. I think it's important for us to have some continuity, and try to get everyone there and not leave somebody out of the loop. That's my desire anyway.

John.

Mr. John Cummins: For the report to be on the record, as part of the committee's record, do you not need a motion of acceptance?

The Chair: No. It's just for the committee's information. It's not a committee report as such.

• 1030

Mr. John Cummins: But you're reporting back to the committee, so it would be part of the record of the committee. You could have a motion of acceptance, and then it's part of the record of the committee, which perhaps would be helpful.

The Chair: Okay. Is it moved by Madame Tremblay?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: No, moved by—

The Chair: It is moved by John Cummins. Okay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I second the motion.

Mr. John Cummins: It's just acceptance so that it's part of the record.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thanks.

You can move a motion that the chair be authorized to approve and finalize the itinerary for a trip to Norway and Scotland, under the assumption that discussions will have to be held with everyone so they can go.

An hon. member: I'll move that.

The Chair: We're short of quorum.

To be honest, it would be nice if we had that motion, but—

An hon. member: Then make a motion. Nobody called for quorum, so—

The Chair: Do you move the motion, Madame Tremblay?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: I second the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.