FOPO Committee Report

Dear Committee Members:

As a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I was pleased to be a full participant in the process that led to the creation of this report. I was also fortunate to have an opportunity to hear and question a number of witnesses. Throughout the process I gained a better understanding of the issues associated with the Oceans Act.

I have no objections to the overall foundation, direction and structure of the report. There are, however, several points that need clarification and some recommendations that I believe need to be strengthened or added.

• In the draft report, while there is frequent reference to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, there is no clear definition of the Minister’s role. It should therefore be reinforced that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans remains the final decision maker concerning the management of Canada’s Oceans.
• Another reference that is missing from the draft report is; that the consultation process leading to all decisions be open and transparent. I maintain that failure to reinforce the importance of clarity in the decision-making process would be a detrimental omission.

In addition to the above general objections, I have some specific supplementary recommendations. They are as follows:

In Part II ― The Oceans Management Strategy, section 2.38 ― where the reports states:

• I would suggest that the wording "it would have been preferable" could be strengthened and that the report should recommend that:

In section 2.47 where the Committee recommends:

• I suggest changing, strengthening and broadening the recommendation to include all oil and gas exploration. For example the phrasing could be as follows:

"The Committee recommends:

• There is a perception within the fishing, Aboriginal and environmental communities that ministerial approval has been deferred particularly in matters relating to oil and gas exploration. Given the expressed concerns of these communities, and the potential expansion of oil and gas sector on the Pacific Coast, additional wording should be included in the report to recognize the concerns and to reaffirm the role of the Minister.

In Part III, section 3:11

• I recommend that any revisions to the marine services fee or Icebreaking fees be reflective of the differing service needs of various ports. For example, the ports of Halifax and Vancouver do not require icebreaking on a regular basis.
• I maintain that there are potential competitive and economic disadvantages in having a "blanket" marine service fee structure. The concept of "scaled fees" or "fee for service" (i.e. icebreaking) should be examined and ensure that the views and opinions of ports like Halifax and Vancouver are reflected in any changes to the marine service fee and in the final report.

I trust that you will give my suggestions serious consideration and thank you for the opportunity to provide my input.

Sincerely,