FOPO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

»

1735

The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.))

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault (Executive Director, Association of Canada Lands Surveyors)

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

Mr. Tim Lawrence (Chairman, Offshore Issues Committee, Association of Canada Lands Surveyors)

»

1740

Dr. Susan Nichols (Professor, Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick)

»

1745

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ)

»

1750

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance)

Dr. Susan Nichols

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Susan Nichols

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Susan Nichols

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

¼

1810

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC)

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan (Director, Ocean Mapping, Canadian Hydrographic Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans)

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. David Monahan

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Susan Nichols

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

¼

1815

Dr. Susan Nichols

Mr. John Cummins

Dr. Susan Nichols

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

¼

1820

The Chair

Mr. Tim Lawrence

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Tim Lawrence

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

¼

1825

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

¼

1830

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Tim Lawrence

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Tim Lawrence

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance)

¼

1835

Dr. Susan Nichols

Mr. Andy Burton

Dr. Susan Nichols

Mr. Andy Burton

Dr. Susan Nichols

Mr. Andy Burton

Dr. Susan Nichols

Mr. Andy Burton

Dr. Susan Nichols

Mr. Andy Burton

Dr. Susan Nichols

Mr. Andy Burton

Dr. Susan Nichols

¼

1840

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Dr. Susan Nichols

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan

Mr. Andy Burton

The Chair

Dr. Susan Nichols

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP)

Dr. Susan Nichols

Mr. Peter Stoffer

¼

1845

Mr. David Monahan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. David Monahan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Dr. Susan Nichols

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Dr. Susan Nichols

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)

Dr. Susan Nichols

The Chair

Dr. Susan Nichols

Mr. Bob Wood

Dr. Susan Nichols

The Chair

Mr. Bob Wood

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

¼

1850

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Dr. Susan Nichols

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. David Monahan

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. David Monahan

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. David Monahan

Mr. Loyola Hearn

¼

1855

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Dr. Susan Nichols

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Tim Lawrence

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

½

1900

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault

½

1905

The Chair

Mr. Tim Lawrence

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan

The Chair

Mr. Tim Lawrence

The Chair

Mr. Tim Lawrence

The Chair

Mr. Tim Lawrence

The Chair

Mr. Tim Lawrence

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan

The Chair

Mr. David Monahan

The Chair

½

1910

Mr. Tim Lawrence

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

½

1915

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Alan Nixon (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Peter Stoffer

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

---

NUMBER 017

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

»  (1735)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is proceeding with a study on offshore property rights. This evening we have Dr. Susan Nichols, Tim Lawrence, and Jean-Claude Tétreault from the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors.

    As I said off the record, I propose allowing our witnesses to make their presentation, and then we will take a break of no more than 15 minutes to allow all the people here to partake of the food at the back. Members can then proceed with their questions. I would ask you to keep it roughly in the vicinity of 15 minutes.

    Mr. Tétreault, please.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault (Executive Director, Association of Canada Lands Surveyors): Good afternoon.

    First, I want to thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to talk to you this evening. I'm sorry the briefs came in fairly late, so there was not an opportunity to have them translated.

    I'm the executive director of the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors, and I have invited these two people to make presentations. The first presentation will be by Tim Lawrence, who is a Canada lands surveyor and chairman of the offshore issues committee of the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors. He is also a director for Thales Geosolutions Group in Nova Scotia.

    The Chair: Mr. Tétreault, if I could interrupt for one second, on the issue of the availability of the documentation in French, I'll wait until Mr. Roy comes and then we'll deal with it. We should at least ask him if it's all right to accept the documentation.

    But in any event, please proceed.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: Okay.

    I'll pass the floor to Tim.

    Mr. Tim Lawrence (Chairman, Offshore Issues Committee, Association of Canada Lands Surveyors): Thank you, Jean-Claude.

    The Association of Canada Lands Surveyors is a federally enacted professional association that regulates the activities of its 540 members across Canada, who have expertise in surveying, photogrammetry, remote sensing, geodesy, hydrography, and land information systems. Canada lands surveyors are the only professionals authorized to perform cadastral surveys on Canada lands, which include the part of the offshore under federal jurisdiction.

    Since its formation in 1985, the ACLS has been aware of many issues relating to the boundaries of rights in the vast extent of offshore Canada lands and the need for survey regulations. ACLS brought them to the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources in 1996 and proposed a workshop or a parliamentary committee whereby interested parties could define the problems and offer suggestions or solutions. But no action was forthcoming with respect to these proposed consultations.

    Natural Resources Canada, more specifically the legal surveys division, has been supportive and active on this topic. One example of this is the new oil and gas regulations that are being prepared.

    After finally achieving its status of a self-governing profession in March 1999, the ACLS organized a one-day workshop in conjunction with its annual general meeting held in Halifax in March 2001. The committee had invited nearly 200 stakeholders in the Canadian offshore, ranging from the oil and gas development companies to provincial coastal land administration agencies. Nearly 60 attended. The primary goals were to heighten the awareness of the responsibilities or concerns of the respective stakeholders in offshore Canada lands and to find a common strategy to move this industry sector forward for the betterment of all. The legal surveys division of NRCan and the Canadian Hydrographic Service of Fisheries and Oceans Canada were heavily involved in organizing this workshop.

    It became clear at the workshop that property, administrative, and jurisdictional boundaries are fundamental elements in any geospatial data infrastructure, especially in the offshore where these boundaries still face many technical and legal uncertainties. It is for this reason that the ACLS advocates that a marine cadastre would be an integral part of an effective and integrated oceans resource management strategy. A marine cadastre would provide a continuous up-to-date inventory of all property rights and resource information, so that conflicting use of the resources could be minimized.

    I'll now call upon Dr. Sue Nichols to present a brief on marine cadastre.

»  (1740)  

    Dr. Susan Nichols (Professor, Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick): Thank you very much.

    Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. I heard some of you referring to water lots, navigable waters, and other issues. You have probably read La Forest and Water Law in Canada, which is the major text for that.

    I want to go beyond that today, because we have the oceans, which are probably one of the most important resources Canada has--we have them on three shores, and if you include the Great Lakes we're bordered with oceans--yet we know so little about them. We're beginning to get the technologies to map the bottom of the ocean, to be able to understand what's out there, but we're just starting to scratch the surface about who has rights to the resources or the use of the resources offshore.

    Those are private property rights. They are administrative and jurisdictional rights of the municipalities, the communities, the provinces, the territorial governments in the north, and the federal government. We have aboriginal rights that are a concern in the offshore areas and need to be recognized. So we have a variety of rights and an ever-increasing amount of activity out there, especially in the near-coastal zone, and often these rights come into conflict.

    What we are here today to do is talk to you about property rights infrastructure offshore, in particular something we have called a marine cadastre, which would help to provide information about those property rights offshore.

    The word “cadastre” comes from the French. Napoleon established a cadastre when he conquered various countries in Europe. One of the things he wanted to do with his newly conquered countries was find out who owned what and be able to tax them to fund his armies. A cadastre is simply a record of who has property rights in land and what the nature of those are.

    So when we're talking about a marine cadastre, we're talking about having some kind of information system that will help us identify who the rights holders are along the coast, in the coastal zone and coastal waters, and even offshore--who has jurisdiction, who has administration, who has title.

    That doesn't mean we can go out and draw lines saying this is yours and this is mine. Many of those rights will actually coexist. They have three dimensions anyway, because we're dealing with the water column as well as a spatial extent, and some of them are related and have a temporal dimension as well. When the resource moves, like the fish, perhaps the property rights move.

    So it's a very complex issue. It's a little different from what we have on land, and we've been conducting research and developing some of the technologies that will help us to do this.

    Why we wanted to be here today was to bring to your attention that when you're looking at programs and projects within the oceans at the federal level, you should make sure the property rights side is respected as well. And perhaps there would be some opportunities to build into some of these projects and programs some of the projects that would show us how to develop a marine cadastre.

    The offshore is a very complex area. We wait for Supreme Court decisions probably with regard to federal-provincial jurisdiction. Those will only happen when an issue occurs, as it has with the tribunal between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland recently.

    It is complex, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore it just because it's complex. We have to know, if there is an issue, who should be at the table. Right now it's very difficult to identify even who all the stakeholders are.

»  (1745)  

    I'll give you one example. We've been working in a proposed marine protected area in Musquash Estuary in New Brunswick on the Bay of Fundy. This is a federal program coming out of the Oceans Act. The federal people responsible for the project are just beginning to understand that the province has a coastal zone management policy in that area. The Municipality of Saint John has rights. There are water lots out in the middle of the Musquash Estuary. There are riparian owners. There are traditional fishing rights, some of which may or may not still exist and some of which are being protected under the regulations that are being developed.

    In the beginning people didn't know who to invite to the table. One of the things that a marine cadastre would do is give us the opportunity to identify who the stakeholders are and ensure that everybody is involved. I think if there's one thing we know about our oceans today, it's that it isn't going to be one agency or one level of government that is going to solve problems or even prevent new ones from happening. It has to be co-management with the communities all the way up to the federal government. To do that you're going to have to deal with and respect all the rights holders out there, and you need to identify them.

    I'm here to support the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors, who do have some responsibilities offshore for boundaries and property rights regimes. They have some specific issues as well. They are going to be players in this game. Therefore, they really want to ensure that you realize there are people who are taking an interest in this.

    From my perspective and the perspective of coastal communities, when projects such as the DFO-SSHRC projects; the Oceans Management Research Network projects, such as GEOIDE, which are national centres of excellence; and the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure, which has a marine component, come on board, I would like you to be aware that one of the missing parts in all of this is the information about the property rights.

    I'll leave it there for questions. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Nichols.

    Monsieur Tétreault, did you want to say anything?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: No, that's all.

    The Chair: Colleagues, we have to deal with the material before me, not before you--in particular Monsieur Roy, but in general everyone. The documentation was provided to us but not in time to properly translate it. I would like the permission of the committee to be able to distribute it in the language in which it was given, which is English.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Okay. You can distribute them, but I do not want them. I want them translated.

»  (1750)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you. Of course, it'll be translated as soon as possible, Monsieur Roy.

    I would bring to everyone's attention the paper entitled “Marine Cadastre: The Basis for Understanding the Use and Governance of Ocean Spaces”. It might be good if we were to review that while we're eating. It would be an excellent starting point for questions.

    As we said at the beginning, I'm going to adjourn for exactly 15 minutes for the purpose of us having a bite to eat. I would invite our three invited guests to begin. After them it's catch-as-catch-can. At exactly 6:05 we will reconvene with questions, starting with Mr. Cummins.

»  (1750)  

---

¼  (1805)  

    The Chair: As is usual, what we do is we alternate our questions and we start with the official opposition. In this case we start with the official critic for Fisheries and Oceans for the opposition, Mr. Cummins, and he has 10 minutes to ask you questions.

    Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much for your presentation today.

    In starting the questions, I want to first ask you about something you didn't mention and that something is the notion that the 1992 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea allows countries to extend their territory beyond the 200-mile limit if they can prove the submerged prolongation of their land extends beyond that. These claims aren't easy to make. Under article 76, they require a whole host of issues to be addressed. I wonder, in developing this notion of a marine cadastre, if the issue of extending Canada's jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile limit to include the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and possibly the Flemish Cap has been considered by your group. I'll just leave it at that.

    Dr. Susan Nichols: The answer is yes. We've been actively working on that problem. We have Dave Monahan of the Canadian Hydrographic Service. He is our hydrographer in residence in our department, working with the ocean mapping group, working with my coastal and land studies group, and very actively researching issues involved around Canada's claim. We've been looking at some of the impact of the UN commission that evaluates these claims. Recently we've been looking at some of the things to deal with the Arctic as well in Russia's claim.

    Mr. John Cummins: I understand that Canada's claim includes about three quarters of a million square kilometres on the east coast and perhaps a half a million in the Arctic. Does that claim include the Flemish Cap as part of it, or do you know?

    Dr. Susan Nichols: It's a claim to the continental shelf, the seabed itself beyond 200 nautical miles, so it doesn't affect the fish above in the water column. It is a claim of the continental shelf, and it is a claim that we could make. Canada has not ratified the treaty.

    Mr. John Cummins: But my question is, does that claim, or the extension of the continental shelf, in your view include the Flemish Cap as well as the nose and tail of the Grand Banks?

    Dr. Susan Nichols: Yes, it does.

    The Chair: Mr. Cummins, for a point of information, there was an article in Saturday's Ottawa Citizen on this issue you're raising. David Monahan is quoted in that, and he is sitting in the back. I'm not saying he's hiding, but he is here. If you'd like, we could call him to the empty chair at the front and he could answer your questions directly, if Dr. Nichols can't or....

    Mr. John Cummins: Certainly, if there's something he has to add, I think it would be important.

    The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

¼  (1810)  

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Can we get copies of the article?

    The Chair: Yes, we'll get copies of the article for you.

    Mr. Monahan, welcome. I presume you had an opportunity to hear the questions Mr. Cummins asked. Did you want to add anything to what Dr. Nichols said?

    Mr. David Monahan (Director, Ocean Mapping, Canadian Hydrographic Services, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I heard the question, and Professor Nichols' answer was complete. The claim, as we understand it, based on what we currently know, does include Flemish Cap, the nose and tail of the bank, and Orphan Knoll.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Cummins.

    Mr. John Cummins: Does that claim essentially under this provision include in fact more than just the sea bottom? Does it include the water column?

    Mr. David Monahan: No, article 76 of the treaty gives the coastal state the sea floor, the mineral rights underneath it, and the species that live in contact with the sea floor, but it does not include the water column.

    Mr. John Cummins: We have actually made claim, have we not, under that provision for...? I forget what critter it was, but it was crabs or something on the nose and tail.

    The Chair: Let's put it this way, Mr. Monahan. Do you know if Canada has made claim to some critter?

    Mr. David Monahan: No, I don't know, I'm sorry.

    Mr. John Cummins: There was some problem a couple of years ago with the Americans over that, but I forget the details of it now.

    Another issue I find interesting, and my colleague, Mr. Burton, pointed out to me one of the problems with it, is this notion of jurisdiction. My assumption was that anything below the high tide was in fact under federal jurisdiction, yet there are difficulties there, which he pointed out. Perhaps some of you may want to develop that notion, because I'm not sure it's consistent across Canada. But Mr. Burton suggested to me that if a community wanted a water lot, in fact you wouldn't go federally, you'd go to the province to acquire the same.

    I wonder if you can develop that notion further for us and explain some of the difficulties there.

    Dr. Susan Nichols: Yes, some people have called it a “sea of confusion” out there. The exact extent of jurisdiction for the Atlantic region is not clear. One of the things that came out of interdisciplinary research that we've been conducting for the last few years is the fact that actually you may end up with different limits of jurisdiction depending on the particular resource, whether it's a seabed resource, whether it's a resource of the water column, or whether it's the water itself. So you may end up with different limits between federal and provincial jurisdiction.

    Certainly I'm not aware of anything that says high water. In terms of low water, there were the British Columbia cases in I think 1969 with regard to petroleum resources in British Columbia, and it was for oil and gas and petroleum--not fish--and the limit there was set at something called the “ordinary low water mark”.

    A similar definition has been used in one of the Newfoundland cases, but we do not have anything that really tells us about the rest. The Atlantic provinces, especially the Maritimes, which I'm more familiar with, certainly view the fact as being that they have jurisdiction for certain issues offshore much below the low water. In fact, the coastal zone policy being put forward for New Brunswick goes to the lower low water large tides, which is beyond that. And New Brunswick is developing a marine policy.

    I think we could probably fight over where the line should be all day, and I think what we're learning through the Atlantic accords and other things is let's not go to court again; let's just figure out a way to get all the departments at all levels of government working together. There are certain things the federal government will do much better than the provinces, and certain things that are much more relevant to the provinces.

    The Chair: Anyone else? No.

    Mr. Cummins.

    Mr. John Cummins: On your last comment, I think the ability to do things better is not always necessarily the rule that's followed.

    The issue of ownership is a difficult one. In British Columbia the courts found that the province actually owned the seabed between Vancouver Island and the mainland. The issue of Hecate Strait is still up in the air, but provincial people would probably make quite a strenuous case that it belonged to the province.

    What is the case in the Maritimes, for example between P.E.I., New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia? What do you know to be the case in the territories? Do the inter-island waterways fall under the jurisdiction of the territories or is it federal? Is there a fight looming there?

¼  (1815)  

    Dr. Susan Nichols: There were traditional boundaries between Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia defined before Confederation. Those were to the mid-line of the Northumberland Strait and the mid-line of the Bay of Fundy. That was the definition of the provinces before 1867.

    The thing is it has never been tested in court since, so we don't know. There's never been a court case to come down and say that was right, that was wrong, or whatever. The closest we came was the tribunal last year that dealt with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and also dealt with the 1964 and later the 1968 possible agreement, which apparently they've agreed is not an agreement, where the provinces, including Quebec, in 1964 helped to define mid-lines between all the provinces. That was for seabed resources. That was for mineral resources.

    Mr. John Cummins: That means the feds claim the right to mineral royalties off Nova Scotia, do they not? Then between P.E.I., Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick would the feds claim mineral rights there? Or because the lines are drawn pre-Confederation, is it going to be a provincial jurisdiction? Is that one of the issues you're trying to solve?

    Dr. Susan Nichols: We're probably not going to solve it, but what we want to do is raise awareness that it's not as clear-cut as everyone thinks. I've dealt with federal government agencies that are shocked to hear that the provinces might even think they have a claim out there, and I've dealt with provincial agencies that just absolutely don't want to hear anything about federal jurisdiction, title, or administration there. Mostly what we're trying to do is say it's a mix.

    To answer your question directly, no, we don't know what the federal government would claim in the Bay of Fundy or Northumberland Strait. They certainly take care of fisheries, the coast guard, and other things in those areas. Aquaculture administration has been given to the provinces. There's a mix out there.

    With regard to the territories, I haven't worked up there for a long time. But I did do some work for the Government of the Yukon back in the early nineties when DIAND was devolving some of its administration to the territorial governments. They were defining a boundary in the north on the Beaufort Sea between what was going to be territorial lands and what was going to be under the federal jurisdiction, mainly administered by DIAND. That went to basically the low water, but it was a very poor definition of a boundary, subject to all kinds of disputes some day in the future. That would be my personal opinion on that one.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cummins.

    We're now going to have the chief critic for Fisheries and Oceans of the Bloc Québécois.

    Monsieur Roy, pour cinq minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I believe I understood the message you were trying to get across earlier, when you told us that you came here in order to foster awareness, to tell us that, in the end, what is going on presently is insane, that it is a complete mess.

    You may not be aware of it, Ms. Nichols, but Quebec does not recognize the Oceans Act, precisely because of a similar jurisdictional problem, and we have as well another problem at the present time regarding oil exploration in the Gulf.

    Moreover, there are three federal departments that wish to define marine areas. In fact, a Bill was tabled in the House last year for this purpose. Parks Canada, Canadian Heritage and Fisheries and Oceans Canada are all presently delineating marine areas.

    Here is my question: how could we go about it, in the present situation, to delineate marine areas when there is no existing cadastre? When you referred to a cadastre, what you are saying is that we must, just as we do on land, delineate areas to the nearest degree, and so on. I don't know exactly how it is done, I am not a surveyor. But how can a government pretend to create an area if there is no cadastre? And how can we grant an operating licence, including for offshore oil development, as was done off Newfoundland and off Nova Scotia, without defining some areas, without already having some form of cadastre? The bottom line is that we would have to have some form of cadastral survey in order to be able to define the area.

¼  (1820)  

    The Chair: That is a very good question.

[English]

    Who would like to take that?

    Mr. Lawrence.

    Mr. Tim Lawrence: When you put it in those terms, there is a form of cadastre, if you're looking at oil and gas exploration leases off Atlantic Canada, that is under the regulations of the Canada Lands Surveyors, and all of those leases are recorded as such. It's the infrastructure that comes out of the exploration and the drilling that is not part of a cadastre or a registration system.

    That brings up the issues of pipelines and sub-sea cables. They can be positioned and laid on the seabed in federal waters without any plans, easements, or rights of way. This is one of the main issues that we're trying to put forward. If you say there is a cadastre there, it's only a partial one. There needs to be more emphasis placed on all activities in the offshore and in ocean management.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: So you are saying that there is a cadastre. However, when you say that it is only a partial one, I do not quite understand. In my opinion, a cadastre cannot be partial; it has to be complete. If you have the areas delineated to start with, in the ocean or on land, the cadastre is complete.

    Essentially, what you are saying is that people are not registering. When installing a submarine cable, they do not inform you of what areas it will go through. The cadastre does exist, but people are not registering. It is somewhat like a right of way, they do not register. It's as simple as that.

[English]

    Mr. Tim Lawrence: At present there is no legislation to have people register their pipelines or cables. Even if there is a database or a method for determining where these infrastructures are on the seabed, there are no legal rights for these companies or anybody to have to go and register these plans. It's not a matter of the cadastre not being there.

    In all federal lands, when you are positioning an oil rig or putting in an offshore platform, they all have to be positioned and they all have to be determined, and plans have to be made up. Everybody knows exactly where they are in the grid system. But as regards the infrastructure that comes from these, there are no laws or legislation to tell people they have to register these. At present, they can lay cables, pipeline, or anything else on the seabed without informing anybody.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: I understand, except that--

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Provenzano, ten minutes.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The first couple of questions are to anyone who cares to answer them, but I'd appreciate a brief answer because I have some other questions.

    I don't know if I got it right, but I think you said that you recently made a presentation. Was it to NRCan, or the standing committee on NRCan?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: We sent a letter to the aboriginal affairs and northern development and natural resources--

¼  (1825)  

    The Chair: I think you misunderstand. I believe you said that in 1996 you met with the Minister of National Resources or asked for a meeting or something. I think that's what he's getting at.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I thought I heard as well that a presentation was made. What I'm wondering is whether a similar presentation was made at any higher level to NRCan, or perhaps to the standing committee, similar to the one we received tonight.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: I don't believe so. The only thing was a letter that was sent to the minister in 1996.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Something I realized as I read your material is you just became a self-governing association, Canada Lands Surveyors, and you're relatively small in number. I think it's 540 members in your association. To have the designation, Canada lands surveyor, would someone be licensed through your self-governing association, or is that licence obtained from the Government of Canada?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: To answer the first question, our association has 540 members and it is the third largest land surveyor association in Canada, after Quebec and Ontario. To be a Canada lands surveyor, yes, it's a question of being licensed. You have to pass a certain set of examinations, a very rigorous exercise. To obtain a commission and then to practise, you have to obtain a licence.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: From?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: From our association as a self-governing association.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: You're a self-governing association.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: Yes, sir.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: And prior to that, who licensed Canada lands surveyors?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: It was more a responsibility, I believe, of Natural Resources Canada. Our association before that was an association, but not self-governing.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Surveyors licensed by the provinces or perhaps through provincial self-governing land surveyors associations would not be members of your association. They would have to apply and meet specific criteria. I understand that the members of your association are the only ones who can perform cadastral surveys on Canada lands.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: Exactly.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Now when we talk about Canada lands, I assume what we're talking about is crown lands in right of the federal government, crown lands owned by the federal government as the crown lands under provincial jurisdiction.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: There's a definition about Canada lands. They are mainly federal parks, aboriginal reserves, the territories--Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut--and offshore that are under federal jurisdiction.

¼  (1830)  

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I'm just interested to know, and really this question doesn't have any other motive behind it, whether there's some jurisdictional problem, or some jurisdictional issues, between your association as a self-governing association and the members of that association and the members of provincially licensed surveyors. If we're talking about property, do we have a territorial dispute going on between who has what right to perform the work? In other words, if you people are the only ones who literally can perform cadastral surveys on Canada lands, can I read between the lines here and say that if you solve the jurisdictional problems as to who owns what, then you also solve a problem of who has the right to do the work? Is that an underlying problem here that we're dealing with?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: No, I don't think so. First of all, most of our members have dual commission and are also provincial surveyors. I could say maybe up to 85% of our members are also provincial land surveyors.

    If you look on the other side, let's say a Canada lands surveyor is out on the offshore doing a survey. Sometimes he may have difficulty determining what jurisdiction he is in and whether there could be any liability issues here. Is he allowed to do surveys here? All of these jurisdictional problems are also factors.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Tonight we're not wading into waters, so to speak, of territorial disputes between what members of what association have a right to do what types of work. That's not a consideration.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: No.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Now your work, I assume, as surveyors would be client-driven. You don't just go out and do surveying unless you have someone who's going to pay the bill. I think Ms. Nichols probably answered my question in some of the things she said, but who generally does pay your bills?

    Mr. Tim Lawrence: Speaking for private industry, I'm a Canada lands surveyor who works for an offshore navigation company, and our primary customers are the oil industry. You're right, we don't go out and do very many surveys without anybody asking us to do them. It's too expensive. Ship time can be upwards of $40,000 an hour. It is oil and gas exploration primarily.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Again, I'm just trying to get my mind around this. If your work is client-driven and the issues you've identified here indicate a need for what you're asking for, to what extent are your clients--if you can answer this--willing to participate in the work that's necessary to accomplish this purpose? Is there any indication they're willing to partner up with the governments to get this done?

    Mr. Tim Lawrence: From what I know, I believe the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, CAP, are quite interested in what Canada lands surveyors are doing and want to get jurisdictional issues out of the way.

    Again, citing the Nova Scotia-Newfoundland dispute, a lot of oil companies were standing back, waiting to see what the decision was going to be before they decided to drill or do any more exploration.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I'll share my time with whoever on this side.

    The Chair: You have two more minutes. Are there any other Liberals who care to ask a question? We'll give you a chance to contemplate. I do want to ask a question.

    I'm not clear on the answer to this question. What jurisdiction, if any, gave you the authority to self-regulate?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: The act respecting Canada lands surveyors is a federal act passed in the summer of 1998, but it came into force on March 18, 1999.

    The Chair: It's a federal act that allows you to be Canada lands surveyors and to form a self-regulating association. Your designation comes from the federal government.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: It's a federal act that created us as a self-governing association.

    The Chair: That's what I wanted to get at. Okay, thank you.

    Mr. Burton, five minutes.

    Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am actually quite interested in this. Many years ago I started out as a surveyor, so I can relate to that end of it. I was also in more recent years mayor of a community that had within its boundaries tidal waters. I fully understand the overlapping jurisdictional issue, at least on the shore side of things.

    I'm very concerned about the offshore as well. But first, quickly on the inshore side of it, to give everybody an example of how complicated it becomes, in the municipality I was in we had a log-booming ground that was on tidal water. Now the municipality controlled the booming ground. We had to apply to the province for the water lot, because at high tide it was water but at low tide it was dry. Well, whose jurisdiction was that? It never was clear. You had DFO, the feds, the province, and the municipality all involved. It becomes very frustrating. Obviously it needs to be clarified.

    To give you an example again of the cost to industry trying to do things, we had a bulk loading facility that wanted to expand their operation--a deep water tidal operation for loading ships. It's a small project, about $3 million. It took them six years and $300,000 to get through the red tape of the federal, the provincial, and other jurisdictions. It's a nightmare.

    When you have DFO, the coastguard, the province, the feds in other areas, CEAA, the municipality, environmental--both provincial and federal--how on earth are you ever going to coordinate all that? It needs to be done. Do you have any ideas?

¼  (1835)  

    Dr. Susan Nichols: Yes, it needs to be done. In some cases it may never ever be clarified unless there's an issue that takes it to court. But at least if people know that all those different levels exist and people know and have access to that information, that's one step in the direction, and that's what a marine cadastre would do.

    Newfoundland?

    Mr. Andy Burton: No, west coast B.C.

    Dr. Susan Nichols: West coast, B.C. Okay, certainly in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia it was very common practice when you wanted a water lot, and this has been a long tradition, to apply to the province and the federal government and you received two titles. That way you knew you were okay.

    That's how people literally work around the problems sometimes. I've seen it through expropriations and other things. Just to clear the title, you take the worst-case scenario and deal with it.

    Mr. Andy Burton: In your opinion, at this time--I'm just trying to clarify this for the record--there is a huge problem that needs to be dealt with. That's what I'm trying to get at.

    Dr. Susan Nichols: I think there is. There's overlapping jurisdiction and administration that probably does stifle some community and coastal development.

    There really are, in a sense, a couple of issues here. There is the offshore, the oil and gas, and all the rest of it. In the coastal areas--the Bay of Fundy, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, on the west coast--you're dealing with a whole different group of people and stakeholders, if you want. That's why it's a partial cadastre, because you have federal government agencies with a little bit of the information on certain activities, and provincial governments with certain activities, and possibly even municipal.

    Mr. Andy Burton: That goes to my next concern. There is the potential of course off the west coast of B.C. for oil and gas development. It's something I'm keenly interested in and would like to see proceed as soon as possible.

    There's also the issue of potential marine conservation areas. If we don't have good boundaries and well-defined jurisdictions as to what's available and what isn't and who controls what--again, you see this lack of cadastre per se on the west coast, whether it comes under a Pacific accord or something like that in the future--personally, I think it could be a problem in terms of allowing the oil and gas industry to develop. Do you see that, or am I fear-mongering?

    Dr. Susan Nichols: Is the question that the lack of a cadastre would inhibit development of oil and gas?

    Mr. Andy Burton: That's what I'm concerned about.

    Dr. Susan Nichols: Probably not in the offshore, but maybe in the coastal regions, if there is any development in there--the near shore.

    Mr. Andy Burton: For instance, the area between the mainland and the Queen Charlotte Islands.

    Dr. Susan Nichols: Possibly, because you do have those marine conservation areas. You have marine planning areas. You have a number of agencies at the federal level and a number of agencies at the provincial level all trying to protect certain areas and to regulate resource use in those regions.

    Mr. Andy Burton: At this time--I think John probably asked the question already but just to clarify--is the jurisdiction clear on that area offshore, off the west coast of British Columbia between the Queen Charlotte Islands and down to Vancouver Island? I think there is a dispute, if not openly, between the feds and the provinces as to who actually controls that.

    Dr. Susan Nichols: This is where I was trying to explain that really when you're dealing with the offshore, the jurisdiction depends on the resource or the space or the resource activity you're talking about. Certainly I think the Province of British Columbia would appreciate the fact that DFO does the charting in that area--does the navigational charts, but they probably wouldn't appreciate the federal government claiming ownership of oil and gas and minerals that from the B.C. cases is an issue that's been fairly well resolved.

    With regard to fish and aquaculture, those are issues that still have to be sorted out. If you're insistent on having a line out there, you're going to have a multiple set of lines from different kinds of activities.

¼  (1840)  

    Mr. Andy Burton: And more and more confusing.

    The Chair: Last question.

    Mr. Andy Burton: On the continental shelf, we had constitutional lawyers--I forget from which department now, perhaps DFAIT--telling us at the committee here that there's no way it would ever happen. It's just such a huge issue out there around the world in terms of pushing your jurisdictions out. It could never happen. But I'm hearing something different from you. We'd like to hear that.

    The Chair: Dr. Nichols, do you want that answer on the record?

    Dr. Susan Nichols: Yes.

    It will happen and it is happening. Russia has already made a partial claim in the north. I have had one research project that dealt with an African country. The United States has a federal committee on marine boundaries, and we are giving a workshop there possibly in about a month's time. They certainly are looking at it.

    There's a software company in New Brunswick that has developed software to help try to find out where that extended limit would be. I believe more than 30 countries have purchased that software. It's happening and it will happen.

    Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you for that.

    The Chair: Do you want to add anything, Mr. Monahan, on that question?

    Mr. David Monahan: It's definitely happening. The first claim is in. We are told informally that a number of other countries have their claims lined up waiting to see what happens to the first one. And, as Dr. Nichols said, there's a lot of activity around the world.

    Mr. Andy Burton: It would be good, Mr. Chairman, if the lawyers from DFAIT.... I'm sure that was who told us it was virtually impossible.

    The Chair: Very interesting.

    Dr. Nichols, when you give your workshop, I hope you don't give any tips that will subsequently prejudice any of Canada's claims.

    Dr. Susan Nichols: We've already got ours in the Georges Bank, so we're happy.

    The Chair: The next questioner is the critic for the New Democratic Party, Mr. Stoffer, for five minutes.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I just want to let the committee know that we have a bit of a bias here. We have Dr. Nichols, formerly of Fletcher Lake in Nova Scotia, and Mr. Lawrence lives in Fall River in Nova Scotia, my home town. So it can't be all bad.

    But I also wanted to thank all of you. Historians around the world are going to be rewriting books on Napoleon because nobody knew what his political persuasion was, but now you've just said he wanted to tax citizens based on the value of their land and buildings. He had to be a Liberal. I wanted to thank you very much for that. Sorry, guys. He had to be a Liberal. So now we know. Historians around the world thank you.

    In terms of collaboration with the United States, in terms of Georges Bank or Alaska and those boundaries, how much work do you actually do with the U.S., or do you share information or do you have a dialogue on a regular basis?

    Dr. Susan Nichols: I'll speak right now from the research side. This is something that has just come up. The American committee called us; they found out that we really had a lot of leading-edge research in this area. As well, the ocean mapping group certainly collaborates with the American government on various projects. They tend to have a little bit more money sometimes than Canadian clients. There is a lot of sharing back and forth. Both Mr. Monahan and I will also be giving a course in a few weeks at the University of Southern Mississippi, which is a three-part group of hydrography programs based at the University of New Brunswick, the University of New Hampshire, and the University of Southern Mississippi. We're sharing resources back and forth. So from the research side, yes.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Monahan, should Canada ratify the Law of the Sea? It's been 21 years.

¼  (1845)  

    Mr. David Monahan: Well, 138 countries have. The only countries that have not are the United States, Canada, and Denmark.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: If we did ratify the Law of the Sea--I know DFAIT said one thing--would that give us a better claim, for example, to extend what we've been asking for--jurisdiction on the Flemish Cap and nose and tail of the Grand Banks? Or does it matter if we do that?

    Mr. David Monahan: It would allow us to submit a claim to the UN for those areas under article 76.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

    Is there any collaboration work going on, for example, with the country of Denmark? I'm thinking of our jurisdiction between Nunavut and Greenland--how close it is in that regard--and also of the fact that we know the Americans haven't officially recognized our arctic sovereignty. What can we do from your perspective in order to push that forward? A lot of people are concerned with global warming, that it's going to open up the passage even more to commercial traffic. We need to have that issue settled fairly soon in order to--

    Dr. Susan Nichols: In 10 years.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on that, please.

    Dr. Susan Nichols: Dave, perhaps, can speak directly to the Denmark border. But certainly the sovereignty in the north is a contested issue. Again, it hasn't gone before the International Court of Justice or anything. There's never been an issue that has taken it that far. Probably Canada will continue to make a claim. The United States will continue to recognize the Northwest Passage as an international strait. Until there is an issue that actually brings that to a head, I doubt very much things will be done to clarify it.

    The Chair: Mr. Monahan, did you want to comment on Denmark?

    Mr. David Monahan: Thank you.

    The border between Denmark and Canada is really the border between Greenland and Canada. As you know, Denmark administers Greenland. We have a bilateral boundary, an equidistant boundary. We just finished an update on that boundary because we found some islands that had been buried in the ice, which has caused a slight modification of that boundary. The two countries worked very cooperatively together on that one.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: On my last question, Mr. Provenzano and Mr. Wappel asked who gave you the jurisdiction. You said it was a federal act. If we wanted to respond to a particular minister, in terms of what you good folks do, who would that minister and department be? I'm a little confused on that.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: The department we answer to is Natural Resources.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Dhaliwal.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

    Is there anybody on the Liberal side?

    Mr. Wood.

    Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): How much of Canada really needs a cadastre? Are you suggesting it needs to be done all along the coastline?

    Dr. Susan Nichols: I see this as a very long-term project. It's not something that's going to happen overnight. There are some priority areas, as we mentioned, between the straits on the British Columbia coast and along the coastal communities in the north where they're very much subject to sea-level-rise problems right now. There are some key spots in the Atlantic region and probably up into the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence Seaway.

    So those are the priority areas. We could fill in the others later.

    The Chair: Mr. Wood asked if you think they should all be filled in sooner or later.

    Dr. Susan Nichols: If there's no activity, there's no need to.

    Mr. Bob Wood: Okay.

    Is the cadastre limited to offshore only? I'm thinking of the Great Lakes. Do you have an opinion on that?

    Dr. Susan Nichols: There should be a cadastre for the Great Lakes as well. I suspect the Province of Ontario keeps some information, as well as the federal government, on the Canadian side. I'm not sure where those records reside for water lots and things like that.

    The Chair: Is that it?

    Mr. Bob Wood: Yes, I don't have anything else.

    The Chair: Do you want to fill in, Mr. Provenzano? Go ahead.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Yes, I'd like to ask a follow-up question along those same lines.

    Do members of your association have the exclusive right to perform any survey work in the Great Lakes? Certainly there are waters that would be considered Canada lands in the Great Lakes. Does the statement you're making about cadastral surveys apply to federally owned waters in the Great Lakes?

¼  (1850)  

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: I don't believe the Great Lakes are Canada lands. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Okay, we're not sure.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: They're not in the definition of Canada lands.

    The Chair: Why is that?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: I'm trying to remember the definition of Canada lands. It's offshore--

    The Chair: But Dr. Nichols asked us to conclude that offshore would include the Great Lakes.

    Dr. Susan Nichols: I was just adding that to remember that we do have the Great Lakes.

    The Chair: The Great Lakes are unique in Canada because they are all one province, Ontario, unlike in the United States where they are in a number of states--plus the federal government.

    Is it your position--we don't want to put a gun to your head--that Canada federally has no place in any offshore lands in the Great Lakes and they're all in Ontario, to the border with the United States?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: I can't say that. I'm just saying it's not within the jurisdiction of the members of the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors. I don't think it's the exclusive right of a Canada lands surveyor to perform surveys in the Great Lakes. Probably Ontario land surveyors do the surveys there. But it's not within our jurisdiction.

    The Chair: Who prescribed that jurisdiction for your association?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: It's the definition of Canada lands in the Canada Lands Surveys Act. I think it's section 32. I'm not sure.

    The Chair: All right.

    Mr. Provenzano.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Those were all my questions.

    The Chair: Mr. Hearn is next. He's the critic for the Progressive Conservative Party.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that I think this is one of the most interesting discussions we have had, and I wish we had had it earlier, in our dealings with the offshore.

    I represent Newfoundland, so I will be asking questions about that area. I have a couple of very short ones on remarks you recently made.

    Russia has made application for extension of its boundaries. Is that only because it's a signatory to the Law of the Sea? Could it have done so if it had not signed?

    The Chair: Mr. Monahan.

    Mr. David Monahan: Russia has ratified the treaty. Canada has signed the treaty, not ratified it.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: It has not ratified it.

    Mr. David Monahan: The UN was actually asked whether a country that had not ratified could submit a claim, and their answer was they'd cross that bridge when they came to it.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: So we don't really know.

    Mr. David Monahan: If somebody submits, then we do.

    There has only been the one submission yet, in history, and that's the Russian one.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: It's a test case.

    Is their claim for land beyond the 200-mile limit, or is it just to extend existing boundaries within the 200-mile limit?

    Mr. David Monahan: No. The language has become a little cumbersome, you know, extending this and that.

    We have 200 nautical miles. Now, under the right circumstances, in certain areas, we can claim another area that lies beyond 200 nautical miles, which is the question Mr. Burton asked about the tail of the bank. So yes, there will be an additional area beyond 200 miles that is claimable as a juridical continental shelf.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Okay. That brings me right to my real question.

    The seabed off Newfoundland, the continental shelf, actually extends beyond the 200-nautical-mile zone, the nose and tail of the Flemish Cap in particular. We do control the seabed, anything underneath, and the sedentary species attached, for want of a better word. Wouldn't that give us the right to oppose destruction of the seabed by dragging, for instance? Where are we in a case like that?

    We don't control the fish that swim over the bed, as you say, but we do control the seabed. Most of the fish that are caught are caught by dragging--trawlers using heavy doors that disrupt the environment, the ecology, etc. Wouldn't that give us a case to protect our seabed?

¼  (1855)  

    The Chair: We're asking surveyors for legal opinions.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: No, just your opinion. Does anybody want to touch it?

    Dr. Susan Nichols: I think it's great. Let's go for it.

    I really have no idea. It would have to be settled.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: And of course we do have historic attachment in that area. There are historic rights by other countries, which may not make it cut and dried. You know, the Portuguese and Spanish have fished there for years, which might complicate it. But you're saying it is our property; the seabed is Canadian.

    So if you had a garden that extended out from your house and your neighbour decided to drive to work by crossing your garden and destroying your sod, it's your property.

    If it's our property, why are we letting somebody else physically destroy it?

    Mr. Tim Lawrence: I can only speak as a surveyor. We would tell you exactly where your garden is and, yes, your neighbour is driving through it.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I think that basically gets to the root of our--

    The Chair: If you don't mind, colleagues, I have a few questions.

    I'm going to ask this of Mr. Monahan. In this newspaper article that was distributed, there's a map of Canada and it shows the edge of the continental shelf. Could you just say how many nautical miles from Newfoundland the edge of the continental shelf is? Is it more than 200 nautical miles, that white line?

    Mr. David Monahan: Yes, the 200 nautical miles is shown on this map as the black-dashed line.

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. David Monahan: Now that's automatic. That's the exclusive economic zone of Canada.

    The white line is our best estimate, based on what we currently know, on where the continental shelf of Canada would lie. Its width, directly east of Newfoundland, is almost 400 miles.

    The Chair: That is double the number of miles currently under our jurisdiction.

    Mr. David Monahan: Yes, it's double the width.

    The Chair: If I understand what you've said, you're not sure whether we need to ratify the Law of the Sea to make this claim, because the UN has not pronounced on it. Is this correct?

    Mr. David Monahan: That is correct.

    The Chair: So it would seem to me there would be no harm in Canada making that claim, even though it hasn't been ratified, and it would not be necessary, at least at this point, to call upon Canada to ratify it to protect its potential rights by making such a claim. Is this right?

    Mr. David Monahan: It would be contingent upon the UN saying, okay, we now have a real claim and now we have to rule on it, and we rule, yes, you can claim it, or, no, you can't.

    The Chair: All right. Is this because no state that has not ratified has made a claim to date? Is this correct?

    Mr. David Monahan: That's correct.

    The Chair: All right. Thank you.

    You were saying you're under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Natural Resources.

    Monsieur Tétreault, you and I have met before, and you provided me with a copy of a letter dated March 6, 1996, to the Hon. Anne McLellan, talking in effect about what you've talked to us about. Is this correct?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: Yes.

    The Chair: All right. I'd like to distribute that now. I'm afraid it's only in English.

    I want to ask you about this letter of March 6, 1996, in which you alerted the minister, if I may put it that way, to a number of things you also alerted us to in this paper you gave us by Dr. Nichols and others, which called for a marine cadastre. Is this correct?

½  (1900)  

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: Yes, exactly.

    The Chair: In the letter you thought it would be a good idea to ask the minister, as a first step, to confirm that potential problems did exist, and then you offered to have meetings with the staff at MNR and ministerial colleagues. Is this right?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: Yes.

    The Chair: Is it also correct that you recommended that she initiate or sponsor a forum to get these issues before the bureaucracy?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: Yes, that's correct.

    The Chair: What happened?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: Since then the association became a self-governing association, and there's a lot of cooperation between our association and the legal surveys division of Natural Resources Canada. We even have one of their staff on our offshore issues committee.

    The government hasn't really replied to the idea of setting up a workshop or a parliamentary committee to discuss this, so we went ahead and held a workshop in Halifax in March—

    The Chair: I don't mean to interrupt you, but you told us about that.

    I just want to know specifically, did you receive an answer from Minister McLellan or any subsequent Minister of Natural Resources confirming there are potential problems?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: Yes, we received a letter on April 26, 1996. I could read it to you, as it's fairly short:

Thank you for your letter of March 6....

You have raised a number of issues that involve not only several federal agencies, but provincial organizations as well. As you undoubtedly appreciate, these are complex issues and their resolution will require a lot of time and effort.

Officials in the Earth Sciences Sector of Natural Resources Canada are examining the extent of the Department's involvement and responsibilities with respect to property rights in the Offshore Canada Lands. The Surveyor General for Canada Lands, Mr. Michael O'Sullivan, will contact you on this important matter.

    The Chair: Did this happen?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: Well, Mr. O'Sullivan, the surveyor general is a member of our council, and there has been a lot of discussions between our association and his department.

    The Chair: All right. In the approximately seven years since this letter, I believe you said that the federal government has not initiated or sponsored any fora, so you took it upon yourself as an association to do so.

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: Yes.

    The Chair: Was the federal government or any department thereof a part of that forum?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: Yes. They were involved in the organization of the workshop we held in Halifax.

    The Chair: Was it MNR?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: It was MNR and the Canadian Hydrographic Service, which is part of Fisheries and Oceans.

    The Chair: What was the result of that forum? You've come to see us to alert us to problems, which I presume you've already discussed at the forum and alerted the Minister of Natural Resources to, as well as DFO. Yet you've asked to come to see us.

    So what was the result of your forum? Has anything happened?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: A lot of what we are talking about today are issues that were discussed at the workshop. I think one of the conclusions of the workshop is that there's clearly a need for a comprehensive property rights system in the offshore--a cadastre.

    The Chair: Have you any acknowledgement of that need from the Minister of Natural Resources or any bureaucrat in that ministry?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: There is definitely an acknowledgement from the surveyor general, Michael O'Sullivan, but I'm not sure it goes past that.

    The Chair: Is that in writing?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: I don't have that in writing, no.

    The Chair: So how would you know that's the case?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: Well, we don't see any initiatives from the government to set the--

    The Chair: No, I mean how do you know that Mr. O'Sullivan agrees with the identification of the problems and the need for a marine cadastre, if there's nothing in writing?

    Mr. Jean-Claude Tétreault: Well, there's a lot of discussion at the council level, because he's a member of our council. In fact, at our AGM in 2002, in his report to our members he addressed that issue in his speech. So there's definitely a recognition, and it's in the minutes of our AGM.

½  (1905)  

    The Chair: All right.

    Now, in your paper you're calling for a marine cadastre, and you set out, I think you said, four specific--although it's more like 25 with all the subpoints--reasons that these things exist.

    I want to ask Mr. Lawrence this. You're working for an oil company--that's what you told us--and the oil company asks you to do a survey of the seabed. They take you out to where they want you to survey--this is a question, not a statement of fact. How do you know, when they stop the ship and you start your work, who owns the seabed on which you're working?

    Mr. Tim Lawrence: Well, fortunately in Atlantic Canada there are no exploration wells for oil and gas close to provincial boundaries. They're all 100 to 150 miles offshore. So to date, in my experience, there's never been any question as to where we are. We know we're within the federal lands as specified by the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors' grid system.

    The Chair: I'll ask this of Mr. Monahan, because I'm not exactly sure. Please correct me if I make this statement incorrectly. In regard to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone, if you're 150 miles offshore, it doesn't mean we own it; it means we have an exclusive right to exploit it. Is that correct?

    Mr. David Monahan: That's correct.

    The Chair: So how do we know it's Canada lands, Mr. Lawrence?

    Mr. Tim Lawrence: I know it's Canada lands because of the Canada lands grid system that is spelled out within the Canada Lands Surveys Act. The grid system is set forth with a certain unit boundary specified to determine the specific grid areas. So by using the latitude and longitude of where I am, I can tell if I'm within the federal grid boundaries set out in the regulations.

    The Chair: And the regulations are made by which department?

    Mr. Tim Lawrence: They're made by the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors, and they were grandfathered from Natural Resources.

    The Chair: Okay, but are they federal regulations?

    Mr. Tim Lawrence: Yes, they are.

    The Chair: So these regulations are decreeing that the seabed at 150 nautical miles out from Nova Scotia belongs to Canada. That's basically what you're saying.

    Mr. Tim Lawrence: That's correct.

    The Chair: Would we not have to make a claim under the Law of the Sea to confirm that, or does the current Law of the Sea say you can go out 150 miles and just say it's yours?

    Mr. Monahan.

    Mr. David Monahan: The UNCLOS treaty gives us 200 nautical miles. Inside that you can do as you suggest. Even though we haven't ratified, I am told by my lawyer friends that this has become customary international law rather than treaty international law, and nobody's going to challenge you out 200 miles.

    The Chair: Do you mean nobody's going to challenge you if you claim actual ownership?

    Mr. David Monahan: If you issue permits for exploration.... I thought your question was about the oil industry, sir.

    The Chair: Yes, it is.

    Mr. David Monahan: Nobody's going to come along and say you cannot let that oil company drill there.

    The Chair: All right. This may be pedantic. I'm just trying to get my head around it, as a lawyer. If you lease, you need to have a right to lease. You cannot lease what you do not have a right to lease. The only way you can have a right to lease is if you own the land or if you have exclusive use of it--let's put it that way.

    Are these regulations you're talking about, Mr. Lawrence, predicated on ownership or on use?

½  (1910)  

    Mr. Tim Lawrence: They are predicated on use.

    The Chair: Okay. That's what I wanted to know.

    Does anyone else have any questions flowing from that or anything else?

    It was fascinating. We very much appreciate you bringing this to our attention. I don't really know where we're going to go from here, but I've learned a new word: cadastre.

    Thank you so much for joining us this evening and giving us this very interesting information. Our committee will decide where we want to go from here.

    Mr. Hearn.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: There's a major meeting in St. John's tomorrow about straddling stocks. Have you or any of the committee been invited?

    The Chair: It's a very interesting question, Mr. Hearn, because by sheer coincidence I was talking about it today. This is a forum on a number of issues pertaining to the fish on the east coast. One of the issues to be discussed by the invitees is custodial management. As you know, we're working on our second report on custodial management, the first one being unanimous.

    In the minister's November response to our unanimous report he stated he was going to call such a forum. I received no information about it until I read yesterday, in my regular material, a press release issued by the minister indicating that he was going to be having this international forum tomorrow.

    So the answer to your question is, I haven't been invited. In fact, I didn't know about it. It is my anecdotal information that no politicians have been invited, much less the fisheries committee, which is very clearly interested in the issue of custodial management because of our very clear and unanimous report.

    Because I only found out about this yesterday and only thought about it today, and the meeting is tomorrow, it's not even possible for me to attempt to crash it because I have another two committee meetings here tomorrow.

    It's fortuitous that you have brought it up because I wanted to bring it to the attention of the committee to inquire whether you want me to ask the minister to appear and brief us on what occurred at that forum, in particular with respect to custodial management issues, because international lawyers are going to be there, and things like that.

    So I think I've answered your question.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I'm probably better off than you are, as I was invited to attend a reception tonight on behalf of the people who were invited. Of course, if I'm not going to be invited to participate in the meeting, I don't want to go to the reception. After all, the main topic on the agenda is the exact topic we not only dealt with but also were responsible for initiating. Not only were we not invited, but also none of the people in the province who were instrumental in raising this issue were invited.

    When I look at some of the people there, who I have heard, and I have seen their documents, they are basically defenders of the government's stand, saying, we cannot do this, we cannot do that. Hopefully, there may be somebody there who'll have a dissenting opinion. But I just hope it's not something where it is said, look, we're doing what we can, and here's this high-profile committee that backs up what we're doing. It perturbs me that it's a one-sided affair. Certainly if you or I could say that maybe I'm the wrong colour...but that aside, I am from the area, as are my colleagues across the way. But the committee was so instrumental in all of this.

    The Chair: I know that Mr. Efford received an invitation to the reception, but I certainly did not receive an invitation to the reception, much less to the conference itself. That's okay.

    My problem with bringing the minister is that we are on the verge next week of presenting the committee with a concise draft report on custodial management, which I hope might be considered quickly. If we're going to hear from the minister, I think it would be obviously premature to consider and issue that report without giving the minister an opportunity to tell us about this conference. If we're going to proceed to issue that report, then there's no point in calling the minister specifically on that issue, because we would have made up our minds already as to what we want to recommend. I was therefore in a dilemma—which I was going to bring up tomorrow.

    We don't have to make a decision today, but if we want to make a decision today, that's fine. I'd like us to consider this dilemma, because we're caught between a rock and a hard place. If we ask the minister to come, we're going to have to wait and hold off on that report. If we're going to make that report, then we're basically going to give the forum the same attention it gave us—though I hate to put it this way.

    Mr. Stoffer.

½  (1915)  

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: Just to clear it up, I think it's most important that we get the report done. There are an awful lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador who want to see something constructive from us. We can work around the other stuff, but this report is crucial.

    I just have a question for Alan. Will some of this testimony be in the report by chance?

    Mr. Alan Nixon (Committee Researcher): It's not. We have already completed a preliminary or draft report, which has gone to translation and the publication service. Since the report has already been done, this testimony is not included.

    I'm not sure to what extent this is really relevant to that report. There are obviously related issues, but for the most part I think this is another issue.

    The Chair: The thing is that this deals with the ocean bottom and the sedentary species. Of course, our custodial management report deals with the straddling stocks and the fish in the actual water, and he already admitted that the water column is not part of this.

    So we're in your hands. My inclination is to go the way Peter suggested and get our report done, but of course we need to see the report and think about it, and perhaps then to make a decision at that point whether it's worthwhile. Bear in mind that we're also going to have estimates, and we don't have to spend just one day on them. If the minister comes, we could certainly ask him about the estimates at the same time we could be asking him about the forum, if we wish to.

    So I'm in your hands. Shall we sleep on it and maybe we could discuss it in the meeting early tomorrow, or do we have some general consensus we'll just proceed with the plan? The plan is that it's in translation, that we were going to give it to you as early as possible next week, and that we would try to deal with it next Thursday.

    Mr. Peter Stoffer: I agree with that.

    The Chair: All right?

    Then we'll see if we can deal with it. If we can't, and we lose the time anyway, then we can decide what we want to do with the minister. Okay?

    Mr. Hearn, thanks for raising this issue. It's funny we talked about it today.

    Thank you all for staying late. The meeting is adjourned.