FOPO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 8, 2000

• 0912

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): We'll call the meeting to order.

The Liberals are a little lax this morning, for some reason.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): It wouldn't be the first time.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Before we begin with the witnesses, there are a couple of things I'd like to mention.

Committee members will recall that we had asked the minister to respond to the report by February 7. Under parliamentary rules the government does have 150 days to respond. I did get a letter back from the minister, which has been distributed to committee members, saying that he will not be responding in full. He made comments on a couple of our points of view.

I met yesterday with people from the department and the minister's office on the Marshall decision. I've been led to believe that things are proceeding and that there will be an interim fishing plan in place prior to the fishing season. I think the best way to proceed is that if we want to ask the minister or departmental officials to appear on the Marshall decision, then we should discuss it at the first steering committee meeting. So people can make their views known on that.

The second thing is that as part of our order of reference on the Oceans Act and studying the aboriginal fishing strategy in western Canada and aquaculture, we were to travel—we may be, I don't know just yet—to western Canada and the state of Washington next week. As I think everyone knows, the Bloc is a little upset over the clarity bill, and they're blocking all travel at the moment. I don't know if Yvan can convince them otherwise. But we will see if we can get that motion through the House. If we don't, we'll have to make a decision by tomorrow evening on cancelling that, rescheduling it, or whatever. That's just for your information for the moment.

Under our review of the Oceans Act, we have with us today, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Matthew King, assistant deputy minister, oceans; Daniel McDougall, who is the acting director general, oceans directorate; Camille Mageau.... Oh, I'm going to have trouble pronouncing this one. She's the director of the oceans policy and integrated management branch.

• 0915

Also with us, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is Dick Carson, who's the regional director, oceans, Pacific region; and Faith Scattolon, regional director, oceans, Maritimes. Are there any others? Hidden in the corner there—oh, no. Chrystia, you'll have to pronounce your last name.

Ms. Chrystia Chudczak (Director, Oceans Policy and Integrated Management Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): You have to try it once.

The Chair: Is it pronounced Chudczak?

Ms. Chrystia Chudczak: It's Chudczak.

The Chair: She's the director of the oceans policy and integrated management branch.

Welcome, people.

Mr. King, I believe you have a presentation, and we'll go to questions from there.

Mr. Matthew King (Assistant Deputy Minister, Oceans, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

We are very pleased to be here today to participate in your committee deliberations as you begin the review of the Oceans Act. We think this review provides us with an opportunity to show the practical implementation and foster the continued development of the oceans agenda.

My remarks today consist of three parts: First, I would like to briefly sketch out the context within which the Oceans Act was passed and describe some of the unique challenges we face in its implementation; second, I would like to highlight important, practical examples of how the Oceans Act is being implemented across Canada; and, finally, I would like to draw your attention to some lessons learned at this early stage of the implementation process.

[Translation]

A number of events, beginning in the early 1970s, led to the passage of the Oceans Act.

In 1974, increased public concern about marine pollution and the foreign fishing in Canada's coastal and fishery zones led to the release of the first oceans policy statement for Canada. This statement focussed on science and technology, along with the development of industries for the exploitation of offshore oil and gas.

In 1987, a second oceans policy statement was issued. It argued for an improved oceans management structure, recommended a Canadian Oceans Act and called for a wide-ranging oceans strategy to address issues of sovereignty, resource development and environmental protection.

In May 1994, the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology's Committee on Oceans and Coasts released the results of their public consultation. It recommended to the Prime Minister that an oceans management strategy be built on a comprehensive legal framework—effectively the Canadian Oceans Act.

Shortly thereafter, public consultations were held across Canada in 1994-95 to seek views on their vision for a new oceans management. These consultations took place in all provinces and territories where we heard from over 1,000 Canadians.

Consultations led to the introduction of the proposed Oceans Act during the 1995-96 legislative session, at which time this committee called witnesses and heard testimony from Canadians.

Royal Assent was received on December 18, 1996 and, of course, the Act came into force on January 31, 1997.

[English]

At the outset it's important to note that Canada remains the only country in the world with comprehensive legislation dealing with oceans. While better coordinated and more sustainable management of oceans resource activity is a relatively new public policy objective in most countries and while many challenges are present, Canada is perceived internationally to be among the world leaders in this endeavour.

Mr. Chairman, the implementation of the Oceans Act seeks to address a number of challenges. First, we are dealing with three oceans. Each is unique and massive in scale. Not only do we possess the longest coastline in the world, but also Canada's oceans represent 60% of our territorial space. The ocean space is huge, diverse, and changing every day.

One important change is the increasing number of ocean users across an increasing number of sectors, such as tourism, recreation, aquaculture, oil and gas, shipping, new fisheries, and submarine cable laying. As a result, there is increased complexity of interactions and potential conflicts that must be addressed.

• 0920

Second, at the federal level more than 23 departments and agencies are involved in oceans issues. Thus, another key challenge is to better coordinate the wide variety of federal activities and mandates. To do so, the Oceans Act clarifies a federal lead, which is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Better federal coordination is necessary and a key objective of the act, but it's not the whole solution. Eight of ten provinces and all three territories touch on our three oceans. Land-based activities have a tremendous impact on our oceans, particularly in the near shore. Moreover, the oceans are intimately connected to the lives of Canadians and coastal communities. For example, in British Columbia 60% of the province's 3.9 million people live within 60 kilometres of the coast, and 70% of that province's economic activity is connected to the coastal area. On the east coast almost all cities and towns are coastal, and the bulk of the population lives in the coastal area.

Increasingly, Canadians want not only to be consulted on issues, but also to be more directly involved in decision-making.

The link between land and water and people means that coastal communities; municipalities; and the provincial, territorial, and federal governments must all cooperate in the development of an oceans management strategy. This sense of interconnectedness of issues and interests is fully reflected in the Oceans Act, which stresses the need for collaboration and coordination among governments and oceans users.

In our view, the core of the Oceans Act, and what I believe I've been asked to talk about today, is the oceans management strategy. Set out in part II of the act, the OMS provides for a national strategy to manage Canada's oceans, which is based on three key principles: sustainable development, integrated management of activities, and the use of the precautionary approach. The Oceans Act clearly indicates that the OMS is built upon two important and mutually reinforcing programs: integrated management of activities and marine protected areas. As such, our focus has been to tackle these two cornerstone program areas based on a learn-by-doing approach.

Sections 31 and 32 of the Oceans Act oblige the minister to collaborate with provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal organizations, and coastal communities to lead and facilitate integrated management. In a sense, integrated management is a planning approach that seeks to involve all interested parties in the development and implementation of plans for the development, conservation, and protection of the oceans and their resources.

Perhaps I could just spend a few minutes briefly describing a few of the 18 integrated management pilot initiatives that are taking place in all three of Canada's oceans regions. The first is the eastern Scotian Shelf integrated management project in the Maritimes region, which was announced by the Minister of Fisheries in December 1998. This project area was selected because of the abundance of living and non-living resources, the high level of biological diversity, and the multiple oceans users and activities in the area. It is an offshore area with a wide diversity of users and high levels of activity. In that sense it is a good, practical example of what the Oceans Act has to offer to help concerned parties in developing and implementing a plan to manage activities having an impact on an ecosystem.

This project is of particular significance because it involves a high degree of cooperation between the federal government and several departments from the Nova Scotia government. On the Nova Scotia side, these departments include the Departments of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Environment, and Natural Resources as well as the petroleum directorate and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, a major regional management body.

Key stakeholders include, among others, the Native Council of Nova Scotia, the Canadian Petroleum Producers Association, the Seafood Producers Association of Nova Scotia, Ecology Action Centre, the World Wildlife Fund, the Sable Island Preservation Trust, and a number of academic groups.

With the eastern Scotian Shelf project we want to build a strong network of working relationships among a wide variety of oceans users in the region. We also want to make sure that when we plan, we do so with the full knowledge of the impact of diverse activities on the shelf's ecosystem.

[Translation]

Another important example of our “learning by doing” approach is taking place in Quebec, in the form of the St. Lawrence Upper North Shore Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project.

In this case, the federal and provincial governments are testing a model of integrated coastal zone management that allows for co-participation by stakeholders. Federal departments and agencies such as Fisheries and Oceans and Parks Canada, together with Parcs Québec and municipalities and public awareness and education organizations are working together to identify a common set of issues in all participating communities.

• 0925

The ST. Lawrence ICZM project is connected to Saint-Laurent Vision 2000 which provides a forum for joint planning on integrated management and sustainable development with 18 federal and 3 provincial departments. The federal government and the government of Quebec are now working together on Phase III of Saint-Laurent Vision 2000.

[English]

In the central and Arctic region, there is the southern Beaufort marine coastline project. Here there is a strong aboriginal focus, as DFO is building on previous planning exercises to partner with the Inuvialuit land claims bodies and the governments of the NWT and the Yukon. The objective is to create an integrated management planning process in order to proactively anticipate and sustainably manage development potential in key areas. Existing and potential activities include the renewed interest in petroleum and natural gas development and transportation; tourism, linked to the wish to protect whale habitat; and the potential development of exploratory offshore fisheries. In addition to the government and aboriginal participants, key players include industry associations, communities, and hunter and trapper organizations.

Another integrated management project that shows how we are implementing the act is the Georgia Basin ecosystem initiative in the Pacific region. This project responds to demands from governments and users to better integrate the management of activities taking place in and affecting the Georgia Basin ecosystem. Started in April 1988, the priority areas for work include clean water, clear air, habitat, and human health. This project is also looking at the resolution of user conflicts and the impact of development pressures.

Georgia Basin is a good example of collaboration that reflects the new way of doing things horizontally. Our federal partners include Environment Canada, which has the lead in this particular project; Health Canada; and the Parks Canada Agency, which, together with the Province of British Columbia, is jointly developing the Pacific marine heritage legacy, focused on the southern Gulf Islands. The province is represented in Georgia Basin through the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; the municipalities of Greater Vancouver Regional District, Capital Regional District, and Cowichan Valley Regional District. The Islands Trust Council is also involved.

The Georgia Basin ecosystem initiative also demonstrates how other non-government partners play an active role in the Oceans Act implementation. Aboriginal groups such as the Council of First Nations on Salish Sea, and resource industry groups such as Fisheries Renewal B.C. and the Fraser Basin Council are involved. Non-governmental organizations such as the Georgia Strait Alliance and the Oceans Blue Foundation are also playing an active role. Also active are academic institutions, through the University of British Columbia and the Sustainable Development Research Institute.

With the Georgia Basin initiative, we are striving to build lasting working relationships among a variety of oceans users whose demands and interests often conflict. It is our expectation that over time innovative governance solutions will emerge that will more deeply tie these groups to the decision-making process. Together these initiatives represent the first stages of developing an integrated ecosystem-based approach to planning the use of Canada's marine resources.

The second program that supports the OMS and complements integrated management activities is the introduction of marine protected areas. MPAs are an invaluable tool for the protection and conservation of the marine environment, which is one aspect of the oceans management strategy balancing act that I mentioned earlier. Section 35 of the act sets out the ability of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to create MPAs, which are essentially areas of ocean space needing special attention. This treatment is granted in order to conserve and protect one or more of the following: commercial and non-commercial fisheries resources, including marine mammals and their habitat; endangered or threatened marine species and their habitat; unique marine habitats; and marine areas of high biodiversity or biological reproductivity.

Five pilot MPA projects have been initiated to date, and on each there is a high degree of collaboration between governments and a wide range of stakeholders. These include:

- Race Rocks, which is located close to Victoria, British Columbia, and is renowned for its exceptional diversity of marine life;

- Gabriola Passage, which is located in the Gulf Islands of British Columbia and is known for its great abundance and diversity of marine species;

- Bowie Seamount, situated approximately 180 kilometres west of the Queen Charlotte Islands and is likely the shallowest undersea mountain in Canada's Pacific waters, supporting a rich assemblage of fish, birds and other species;

- the Endeavour Hot Vents, which lie in water more than 2,000 metres deep and some 250 kilometres southwest of Vancouver and are part of the only hot vent field falling within a country's exclusive economic zone, and which contain a unique habitat with many species not found elsewhere in Canadian waters;

- and finally, Sable Gully, which is located about 200 kilometres off Nova Scotia and is a deep undersea canyon that supports a variety of marine life, including corals and a year-round population of northern bottlenose whales.

In addition, we have announced support for community-based initiatives in Atlantic Canada at Basin Head in Prince Edward Island, and the Musquash Estuary in New Brunswick.

• 0930

[Translation]

The introduction of pilot MPA projects is important because it represents an opportunity to test a national framework that sets out an approach to identify, establish and manage MPAs across Canada.

This National Framework, which is complemented by Regional Frameworks, is also based on the “learning by doing” approach adopted in 1999 following extensive consultations with oceans users.

Designed to be flexible and reflect local marine conservation and protection objectives, the framework provides a coherent set of principles for establishing and managing a national system of MPAs.

It will be revised based on the experiences and lessons of the pilot projects. Pilot MPAs allow experimentation in real-world situations. Currently we are working on projects that test the MPA concept in different physical and social environments, as well as exploring different partnering arrangements.

[English]

There are a number of other OMS-related activities that play an important role in implementing the act. These activities range from public outreach to engaging the volunteer sector, to the provision of educational materials on oceans. Since the passage of the act, we have developed the websites “Oceans Canada” and “Oceans Conservation” to enable Canadians to access publications and information about our mandate and oceans-related activities.

Another example lies in the strengthening of connections to the volunteer sector in Canada. On the west coast, the community-based reefkeepers and shorekeepers organizations have formed and are banding together to achieve habitat restoration and protection, for shore improvements, as well as for public sensitivity and awareness-building of key local area needs for the oceans.

As well, facilitating education is another important area. Oceans 11 was created through a collaborative effort on the part of the provinces, educators, the National Association of School Principals, and others. A joint effort developed a grade 11 curriculum on sustainable development in oceans. Piloted in Nova Scotia as part of the International Year of the Ocean activities, Oceans 11 is now being converted and customized, with DFO support, for schools in the Arctic.

These are just a few of the examples of what we've been doing on the ground across the country since the act was passed.

While we've been able to show this morning a little bit of the scope of the activities involved in implementing the act, we recognize that this is just a beginning, but in three short years we feel we've learned a lot. For example, the pace and timing of community involvement differs depending on where you are located in the country and what the needs and priorities of coastal communities are. Some stakeholder groups are more ready than others to pursue initiatives. Therefore, we must be careful to make sure that all players whose environment is affected by Oceans Act activities are made aware of the potential power of the act to facilitate their vision.

In implementing oceans activities, we have learned about the importance of innovation in how we collaborate with provinces and territories. This means understanding when to take a leadership role and when to act as a catalyst and be a strong team player.

We also recognize that there are some lessons learned that we have yet to distill given our limited experience with the act's operation. Integrated management projects and MPAs are still young and still in progress. They need a history of collaboration, planning, and implementation before conclusive lessons can be drawn. As well, we need to appreciate and understand the full meaning of collaboration, because it does not just mean coordination. We believe it is something deeper and more lasting that can only be determined at a community level with people who live around a marine environment.

As we gain more and deeper experience in the implementation of the act, our understanding of the potential of the act will become richer.

• 0935

Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude by setting out our next steps in the implementation of the act.

With the knowledge and experience gained across all of the first initiatives that comprise the OMS to date, one fact is becoming clear. Communities, stakeholder groups, and aboriginal organizations are developing and understanding the potential of the OMS, and they are demanding participation in its application. With a number of initiatives underway and with a number of new initiatives that will encompass the increasing number of communities, we believe we're well on the way to fulfilling the objectives of a national strategy as set out in the act.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the committee members for this opportunity to discuss the ongoing implementation of the act. We would be pleased to answer any questions. Merci.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. King.

We'll turn to questions, going first to Mr. Stoffer, because I think he has to be at the House at 10 o'clock. We'll then come back to Reform, but we have a motion to deal with before you leave, Peter. Go ahead.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to my colleague, John Duncan from the Reform Party, for allowing us to go first.

To Mr. King and the people here today, thank you very much for coming. But unfortunately what you have—and I don't mean to say this in a negative way or to say that what you have here is not important—are just words on paper. I live in Nova Scotia and I saw what happened with the Sable Island project when a new code of practices was done.

In 1997, the Sable group and the province went around the small communities. They had a map, and on that map was a black spot. On that black spot were identified the initials “NTZ”, which stand for “no-touch zone”. When I asked about that, they said Sable Island will not be touched by oil and gas exploration of any kind. Okay, that's fine. But then we found out that just a while ago, under the direction of Zoe Lucas, a new code of practices was done so that they could do seismic work on the island. There is no question that there was minimal environmental damage done to the island, but it would have been a lot worse if she wasn't there.

My first question is why, after we were advised that it would be a no-touch zone, there was a new code of practices done up to appease the oil and gas petroleum associates so that they could do their work on the island. What they did was put a ship on either side of the island and run cables right across the island. Anyone who's been there knows it's extremely fragile, so the less human activity we have on that island, the better. Unfortunately, they were on the island. I just want to know how that can be circumvented in order to do that when we were advised quite clearly about that—all groups, including the Ecology Action Centre, which is no longer part of the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore petroleum thing because of that outline.

There's a second question that I have for you. The minister was quoted in the paper a while ago as stating that he's going to go after the harbours that still pollute, cities like Victoria and Halifax. Those cities put up an uproar and said to give them the funding if he's going to do that. But under section 35, he has the ability to tell these cities to stop putting raw sewage into their harbours because it affects marine life. What is the minister going to do to pursue that angle? Of course we support him in that initiative.

You talked about protection of the Gully, which is very important, but the department still allows bottom trawling to happen in precious coral areas in southwest Nova. We know that happens because we see the coral come up from the nets. And when you destroy fish habitat on the bottom of the ocean, you know it's going on. Again, these are words, but the fact is that you still allow dangerous technology in that regard to destroy fish habitat.

As well, when it comes to swordfish and longlining, some people call it a shark fishery with a swordfish by-catch. Those longlines are 30 or 40 kilometres long, they're about 20 metres apart, and they catch everything from sharks to turtles and everything else, plus undersized swordfish as well.

My question would be what are you going to do to prevent that? We have a pretty good harpoon industry there. That's a more selective way of harvesting the resource. In the United States they've destroyed the harpoon fisheries. There is none, so there's big competition between the longliners, and in that regard it's wrong.

The Chair: You're taking his time for answers, Peter.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: My last question will be on ballast exchange. I understand that ballast exchange in our country is on a volunteer basis. We saw what happened with our Great Lakes. We're spending $68 million a year for a sea lamprey problem and because of foreign species that enter our Great Lakes. Is the government at all initiating a process whereby ballast exchange has to be mandatory prior to those ships entering the St. Lawrence or any other seaway that we have?

I have many more questions, but I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

The Chair: That's a start, I'm sure.

Mr. King, or whoever.

• 0940

Mr. Matthew King: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll begin, and then I'm going to ask my colleague, Faith Scattolon, who's the director of oceans from the Maritimes region, to jump in as well.

With respect to the first initiative, Mr. Stoffer, you mentioned the signage of certain areas as no-take zones, and then that was removed, and then exploration, I gather, took place after that. I am assuming that these warnings were placed by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

I think what's really important, in terms of lessons learned coming out of this, is it cycles back to one of the critical underpinnings of the act, and that is the notion of a true integrated management of an ocean space.

At present, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, like the Canada-Newfoundland board, operates under separate legislation, with a separate mandate and a separate minister. Under the current system it's the Minister of Natural Resources who would take those decisions. What we are trying to do with the Oceans Act is to bring, as I mentioned earlier, as a first step the 23 federal departments who have a mandate to act in the ocean into a single planning process.

On the issue and the example you have given, I would like to believe that at a certain point in the future, when we have a fuller implementation of the Oceans Act, at a very minimum, the decision to reverse on the no-take zone would be taken in the broader context of an integrated management plan that involved not only the board itself, but whatever local interested stakeholders and interested groups were forming part of that planning process. So we see this as one of the primary downstream objectives of the act.

When all is said and done, we are really focusing on putting in place planning processes that, at a minimum, will bring enough people to the table to express a point of view and make a recommendation at a certain point in time to whoever the relevant minister is.

I'll stop there and try to get to your second question, concerning where we were going in terms of the production of municipal effluents. You raised the issue of Nova Scotia. I think Minister Dhaliwal said pretty clearly in the period just before Christmas that this was an area of concern to him, for two reasons: it's an area of concern in the context of the Oceans Act, but it's an area of concern for him to the extent that he's responsible for the implementation of the Fisheries Act. Section 36 of the Fisheries Act indicates that no one is allowed to deposit deleterious materials into a waterway.

That being said, it's a pretty well-known fact, I think, that municipal effluent is a critical issue right across Canada. It's not just in our coastal areas; it's a critical issue in all of the communities that are up and down the Great Lakes.

I think Minister Dhaliwal said at the time that in the first and second mandates of his government, the government had gone through two basic infrastructure programs, and during the course of these infrastructure programs, where of course municipalities and cities were given the opportunity to come forward with infrastructure-type proposals, we estimate that several hundred million dollars were dedicated to upgrading municipal sewage services.

I think Minister Dhaliwal was saying that given what was indicated in the Speech from the Throne—i.e., a potential extension of an infrastructure program—then it would probably be worth while for municipalities, provincial governments, and the federal government to sit down and see if we could duplicate that, if we could devote more resources to improving municipal sewage records.

As I say, it's a multi-multi-multi-billion-dollar issue across Canada, and there's this sense that we are making a start. In fact, since those statements we have received letters from various mayors, particularly in Nova Scotia, saying “This is a good thing. You've brought the profile back to this again, and we're certainly willing to sit down and work with you.”

• 0945

You have to be honest, funding is going to be an issue. But one potential source of funds, if indeed this infrastructure program that was alluded to in the Speech from the Throne comes to fruition, would be that.

With respect to the bottom-trawling on the Gully, I share your view on that: I think that is an important issue. Within the department itself, I'm not responsible for fisheries management or fisheries practices, but we are involved in a pretty significant policy review of these two areas. I can't say that one of the objectives of the review would be to ban bottom-trawling everywhere, but at a certain point in time, over the last ten years, say, or maybe a little bit longer, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the fish management side have moved from what was originally a single-species sort of management approach toward a multi-species management approach and now toward integrated fish management plans.

We on the oceans side, you have to remember, are the new sector in the ocean, and we're still sort of struggling to have ourselves heard. While we are coming up, we think we are working in a parallel fashion with our emphasis on integrated management. We are hopeful that in the coming sessions our lines will be able to cross. So at a minimum, the ability to sort of bottom-trawl in a sensitive area again would be something that would need to be considered in a broader integrated management planning forum. That is certainly one of the longer-term objectives for the act, and I believe for the department.

Your fourth question pertained to directing for swordfish. I'm afraid I don't have an answer for you on that. I don't know enough about fish management to get into that, but I can certainly look into it and see if I can get a response to that.

Can I ask my colleague from the Maritimes if she would want to add anything to that?

Ms. Faith Scattolon (Regional Director, Oceans (Maritimes), Department of Fisheries and Oceans): On the swordfish issue?

Mr. Matthew King: No, on all four of them.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: On the corals issue, I do think we've been making a lot of progress in the last year or so, specifically trying to identify the sites. As you probably know, a lot of the information we've gotten has been anecdotal, and we've been trying through some of our research surveys to tag on a day or two and to go out to some of these areas and actually do some underwater photography and find out specifically where the coral populations are. We did that in the northeast channel, south of Browns Bank, and on the edge of Georges Bank.

As Mr. King said, in terms of integrated planning, particularly in the Gully and the eastern Scotian Shelf pilot project that we have underway now, one of the associated initiatives with that project is to actually undertake a workshop later this year where we would look at the fishing plans for that particular area and look at how in fact those plans are incorporating ecosystem objectives and how we might improve the fishing plans, again moving from a focus on single species, looking at habitat and multi-species effects.

I think the industry as well as environmental groups have been very forthcoming in providing information on coral locations. As Mr. King says, we do have to incorporate those issues into a broader planning process.

The Chair: Thank you, Faith.

Does anyone else have anything they want to add before we go to Mr. Cummins? Mr. Carson.

Mr. Dick Carson (Regional Director, Oceans (Pacific Region), Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Chairman, I recognize that Mr. Stoffer's comments were mainly directed toward the east coast, but I thought perhaps I could add a perspective from the west in relation to the question of sewage discharge.

Perhaps the one thing we could say about this that's a reflection directly with the Oceans Act is that this is an issue that clearly involves multiple levels of government. In the case of Victoria, for example, the capital regional district of Victoria has had a lot of involvement with their deep-water outfall over an extended period of time. One of the things they're hoping to pursue with this is addressing the sources of pollution. One of the concerns related to sewage of course is the entry of toxics and other pollutant chemicals into the sewage system. So they're hoping to tackle that from that end, as opposed to the discharge end, in addressing it.

In the context of working cooperatively under an oceans management strategy, we will listen and will work together with different levels of government to address the different issues and different opportunities to resolve those things all together. It's part and parcel of a planning approach under the strategy.

Thank you.

• 0950

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll come to Mr. Cummins.

Before you head over the the House, Peter, we have a motion that is cleaning up the committee travel on the Marshall decision. The motion is that the hospitality expenses incurred during the committee travel throughout the east coast be approved.

Does somebody want to move that motion? I can read it again.

Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Slowly.

The Chair: The motion is that the hospitality expenses incurred during the committee travel throughout the east cost be approved. I believe it was $1,150.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to the folks from DFO. It's kind of nice to have folks from DFO here not involved in fisheries management. It sort of makes for a non-confrontational morning, so to speak. So it should go pretty well.

I have one question to start with. It seems to me, on the marine protected areas, that this issue went through the House through Heritage Canada. I wonder if you could just put it in perspective for us. Am I off base on that, with that motion or when this whole issue travelled through the House?

Mr. Matthew King: Mr. Cummins, I don't want to say you're off base at all, obviously, but I will say this. I found myself at a certain point in time in the fall a little bit confused about where we were going—not where we were going, but how people were using the term “marine protected area”.

I believe that in Bill C-8 Parks Canada is putting forth an article that will give to the Minister of Heritage the right to establish marine conservation areas in each of the 29 eco-marine systems across Canada. Now, these MCAs, as they're called—it's a bit too close to MPAs for our liking—are primarily identified to protect specific and unique aspects of the marine environment. They're not affiliated with MCAs.

To complicate the matter even further, the Department of the Environment also has an existing mandate to establish marine protected areas of a sort, but specifically those that represent habitat for birds.

So what we've done since the late fall is we've established a DG-level committee, which my colleague Mr. McDougall chairs, that brings the three departments together to ensure that there's an adequate level of coordination among our activities.

I should also point out—and we can get into this in terms of our own marine protected areas—that our MPA process is a ten-step process and is characterized by a fairly significant and repeated level of consultation with local stakeholders. While I'm not as familiar with what Environment Canada or Parks Canada are doing, I do know that they also have local consultation requirements attached to their initiative.

At a certain point in time we think we'll be able to ensure that the appropriate level of coordination exists among the three governments to make sure that Canadians are not confused or confounded by the three initiatives.

Mr. John Cummins: But haven't we got too many cooks in the kitchen? I'm probably asking the wrong guy. We should have the minister in here to ask that. But it seems to me that it sure complicates management.

I believe that Race Rocks and Gabriola Passage are two areas that were identified by Parks Canada. So who's managing the kitchen here?

Mr. Daniel McDougall (Acting Director General, Oceans Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Maybe I could add a few comments to support what Mr. King was saying.

One way to look at it is that I regard these as fairly complementary sorts of initiatives that the three agencies have. Each of them is looking at conserving and protecting in certain ways something in the ocean space.

For Parks Canada and the marine conservation areas, they're taking a representative chunk, if you will, of the marine space and saying we're going to look at this and find what's most representative of that area, and we're going to conserve and protect it in perpetuity. It's almost like a parks focus, right? You take a piece of land and you say this is it. They've mapped out 29 regions of the country and they say they're going to have one representative piece in each of those 29 regions.

• 0955

If you go back to the Oceans Act, the Oceans Act is fairly explicit in the authorities given to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for the marine protected areas program. There are four categories of things for which the minister can create a marine protected area: the protection of fisheries and fisheries habitat, the protection of marine mammals and species, and the protection of areas of high biological productivity or diversity. So they're very explicit things.

And it's not the same sort of notion of taking a space and preserving it in some pristine state now and forever. It's looking at it for a particular management objective in an area, in a defined space. So it's much narrower and much more focused on a conservation aspect relative to a conservation need, rather than, if you will, creating a park.

Mr. John Cummins: Are you saying that in these marine protected areas, things are going to be left au naturel, if that's the proper term, as opposed to a carefully managed ocean and ocean resources? Is that what you're saying on these marine protected areas—that you're just going to stand back and watch what happens?

Mr. Daniel McDougall: No, it's not a matter of standing back and watching what happens. Through the development process, through the development of a conservation plan for that area, each of those sites is examined along with the government agencies involved, with the users of that space, and a management plan is drawn up for that space that will identify what particular levels of protection are needed in which particular areas and what activities would be permitted or not permitted within that area, which can then be given effect through regulations under the act.

So each site is unique, and each site will be examined by the people involved with that site from both a governmental and a non-governmental perspective, including always the users.

Mr. John Cummins: So as far as the Oceans Act is concerned, in these marine protected areas, you may allow, for example, the harvest of gweducs in some area, whereas Parks Canada would say no. Yet it seems to me Race Rocks and Gabriola Passage were identified by Parks Canada in that bill going through the House. I stand to be corrected on that, but is that not the case? I'm confused about who's running what here.

The Chair: Mr. Carson.

Mr. Dick Carson: One thing I've learned in my experience working with Mr. Cummins is that he always hits to the heart of the issue quickly.

One of the very significant things about our working with the Oceans Act is that it recognizes the fact that over 23 federal agencies have jurisdiction and responsibilities in the marine environment. One other very important aspect is recognizing that Canada is well positioned to deal with this, given that the very largest majority of marine jurisdiction rests with a single agency, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We do have shared responsibility with our other fellow agencies at the federal level, and there's quite a large collection that we also work with at the provincial level.

On the Pacific coast, in relation to marine protected areas, we're building a strategy right now that is a multi-agency strategy. It involves three federal agencies and three provincial agencies all together. At the federal level it includes Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada, and Environment Canada.

As Mr. King identified, a number of things in terms of jurisdictional responsibilities in marine conservation areas, wildlife sanctuaries, and other things are addressed by our federal colleagues. At the provincial level, you could also add ecological reserves, marine parks, and other things.

The important thing for us in building a Pacific marine protected area strategy is we're building a collective picture so that this doesn't get into confusion at the public level. We've agreed that we'll all approach this from a common standpoint.

If I could, I'll pick those two areas you identified, Mr. Cummins: Race Rocks and Gabriola Passage. Race Rocks is significant from the standpoint that it in fact originally started as a marine ecological reserve through B.C. Parks under the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. At this point in time Parks Canada does not have a significant association with it, but they are going to work together with us on moving that area forward. We will, if our consultations and other processes are successful, move it in as a marine protected area under the Oceans Act, because it gives us more opportunities, more flexibility, to preserve the area.

• 1000

In addition to that, looking at Gabriola Passage, that one actually didn't start from the basis of any single government agency. It was actually brought forward by a collection of interests in the local community area, chiefly led by the Marine Life Sanctuaries Society. What has happened over a progression of time is that the province and the federal government have both responded to the interests that have been raised about the uniqueness of Gabriola Passage. Both of them are incredibly unique areas.

As has been pointed out here already, we may not necessarily, in the establishment of marine protected areas, turn them into what was termed earlier a “no-take zone”. We may look at a zoned approach within a marine protected area where we might say certain areas we want to leave preserved and intact as is, and not have a continuing harvest. For other areas we may be able to say we can afford to carry on activities as formerly. The key thing with them is they will be established under management plans, and those management plans will be multiply developed. They're not going to be a product of government; they will be a product of an advisory board process that will involve a number of people.

One further point I'd like to add in the context of all of this, just so that it doesn't come across that the establishment of marine protected areas will occur as a patchwork quilt on our coasts, is we're going to build these things in the context of the integrated management plans Mr. King spoke about in his opening remarks. So the goal with this is if you take the planned approach in the marine environment, you will look for things such as marine protected areas; you'll look for other zones of activity, where perhaps logging operations would continue to take place, aquaculture, or a whole range of different things that could happen in the marine environment. The choice of marine protected areas will be to preserve those things that are unique and special in the marine area.

The Chair: Make this your last question, John.

Mr. John Cummins: Yes.

One of the questions I would have liked to ask if I had been on the heritage committee when the matters were going through committee on these, for want of a better term, marine protected parks, or whatever you want to call them, relates to a happening in California. You may be familiar with this, and I'm sorry I haven't more detail with me this morning; I should have brought it. If I had thought about it, I would have.

There's an area off the coast of southern California where they were protecting marine mammals—I think it was sea otters—and they were to be confined to that area. They broke out of the area and basically ravaged the seabed and adjoining areas on the coast, and I guess they're starting to work up. So there was a huge problem with that, because you had a critter that had the ability to do a lot of damage to the other stocks and species and what not on the coast, and yet they were centred in that marine protected area, gained strength, and just moved on.

The problem then is if you try to protect and leave undisturbed one particular area, it can impact on neighbouring areas of the ocean. So I'm just wondering, who's looking after this thing? Who's looking after the big picture to coordinate these activities when you have so many players, it would seem, in the picture right now?

Mr. Matthew King: That's a really important question, and at a certain point in my introductory remarks I made reference to the fact that we have developed, after pretty elaborate consultations, a national framework for creating marine protected areas. A key aspect of the national framework is that attached to it are regional frameworks.

The national framework would provide fairly broad, high-level direction to specific regions to enable them to create MPAs in a way that makes sense to regional protection and conservation activities. But along with that process, Mr. Cummins, is a pretty elaborate set of steps that one would have to take before a marine protected area is fully reflected or fully prescribed in the regulations attached to the bill.

I'm going to ask my colleague Camille Mageau to talk a little bit about that process and to try to address as directly as possible the notion that an MPA could have an unintended effect at a certain point in time.

Ms. Camille Mageau (Director, Oceans Policy and Integrated Management Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Although the question seems to be focused on a marine protected area, I'd have to pick up on what my colleague Dick Carson was saying in terms of the broader context. The marine protected area program is itself nested in an integrated management plan. So, yes, we would identify an area or a resource that needs special protection, and that's where it would become a consideration for a marine protected area.

• 1005

However, the management plan that's developed in consultation with all the stakeholders, those people who have a vested interest inside as well as outside those boundaries, would have to be part of the larger management plan for a broader area. For example, with regard to the otters, they would either migrate or flourish, go from an endangered status, let's say, to a flourishing population, and therefore spread out and enjoy the wealth outside that MPA. In the case of our marine protected area under the Oceans Act, that marine protected area would no longer be required.

So the special management plan and the special management interventions would be removed, because the one distinction between the Oceans Act MPA and the parks conservation initiative, the preservation of representative areas, is that we're trying to solve a conservation problem or prevent one from occurring. So if there's a fishery that requires special protection, a marine mammal, an endangered species, or a habitat that is really productive and supporting an important fishery, that's when we intervene with an MPA and apply rigorous measures to save and protect that area.

If through monitoring, visiting, and so on we find out that the objective has been met, we remove the need for that MPA, and the larger integrated management plan is then in effect. That's the one that tries to seek that balance between conservation protection and fostering economic development and the diversification of ocean-related industries.

In the specific case you're speaking about, in the process we have for the establishment of MPAs, one of the important functions is going back, visiting, and monitoring, and establishing whether you have met your objectives and what the status is of the population you're trying to protect. Then you take the appropriate measures to say, okay, we can release the strictures we're imposing in the management plan, we can diversify, and so on.

Does that address your question?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes. I still have a problem with the whole picture. It just seems that there are too many cooks in the broth. But that's not something we're going to solve this morning. I think I'll have to do a little more thinking about it in order to get a better handle on that whole issue.

Thank you.

The Chair: Just before I go to Mr. Bernier, one of the things we've learned in all the committee hearings we've held on the Marshall decision on the west coast, in central Canada, and on the eastern coast is that there are a lot of great plans out there, everything from marine protected areas to management plans, you name it. DFO does not have the ability to enforce the plans they have. They don't have the conservation and protection officers in place, in our view. We've stated clearly that there needs to be more enforcement officers. Is that a problem for you under the Oceans Act in terms of the marine protected areas and other areas of your jurisdiction?

Mr. Matthew King: The act gives to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the rights and the obligation to enforce whatever guidelines are promulgated under the act.

That being said, I share your view. Enforcement, particularly in a fairly remote aquatic environment, is a challenge. But we're confident that we have the statutory authority to put in place a sufficient enough enforcement regime. This is one of the things we're learning in our learning-by-doing approach, as we go through this process we're embarking upon now in terms of creating relationships among stakeholders and interested parties in a particular area or a particular aquatic environment. It's easy for me to see how we would bring on a volunteer basis, if not enforcement officers, certainly people to closely monitor what happens in these areas that are set aside.

So I remain fairly confident that given the broad-based coalition of groups and people that tend to be associated with these initiatives, we'll be able to cover that.

Does anybody else have anything on that?

Mr. Dick Carson: I have just one brief point. The one thing that distinguishes a marine protected area from just a simple fishery closed area is the management plan that's associated with the area and the fact that that's collaboratively developed with a group of people. A fishery closure and enforcement fall strictly under the mandate of Fisheries and Oceans. That is our responsibility.

• 1010

A marine protected area, as Mr. King was suggesting, can have in the building of the plan a whole aspect of enforcement, which is monitoring a compliance aspect, that could be done by local community interests. The only reason you would need a fishery officer then is to conduct the pure enforcement actions. If there was a breach or a violation of some term of the closure associated with the marine protected area, then you need a fishery officer for that responsibility.

But one of the advantages that comes with MPAs is that we can build a much more effective enforcement structure without all of those costs associated with enforcement falling on the shoulders of government or resting as a burden on the taxpayers.

The Chair: Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to welcome the departmental representatives. I have already met some of them when we examined the first version of the legislation.

I would like to ask some very brief questions about the MPAs. I would ask the witness who is able to answer my questions today or to reply to them later on, in writing, to raise his hand.

In my opinion, section 29 of the Oceans Act, which is found in Part II, states quite clearly that it is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who leads and facilitates the development and implementation of a national strategy. It does not state “may lead”, it says “leads”.

If the officials at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have been given the mandate to coordinate the entire national plan, I think that we can ask them to provide us with a list of all the zones that have been established, whether they be MPAs or PIZs—there are all kinds of zones—including marine parks that were dealt with in a bill tabled in the House by Ms. Copps. I can't remember whether in fact this bill was actually passed, and I find it funny that it was introduced by the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I would like the officials from Fisheries and Oceans to provide us with this list and to clarify the type of relationship they have with their colleagues when dealing with Canadian heritage and environmental protection and that it describe their contacts with the various provinces and agencies involved in this issue. If we want to understand how the legislation works, we have to ask them to do part of their job.

In his statement, Mr. King made no reference whatsoever to Part III of the Act. Is this because, as indicated by the agenda, you are in an acting position and that your duties are all new to you? I'm wondering why you did not say one word about Part III in your statement and why you didn't encourage us to reexamine it.

For instance, I would like to know what your department has done to fulfil its responsibilities as outlined in section 41, which stipulates that it must provide navigation, ice-breaking and channel maintenance services. Section 41(2) states that the department must provide these services in a cost-effective manner. I would like you to provide me with an analysis of the costs prior to the implementation of the legislation and of the current costs. Have costs come down? What has your relationship with industry been like? Does industry feel that it has been hurt by the cutback in certain services? I don't know.

I recall that we had established two or three rate systems. We stopped charging some rates prior to the elections and, in certain cases, half-rates were charged. Was a report on cost ever published, as it was supposed to have been? We have not heard any word about reviewing the Act. I wonder about this, Mr. Chairman. This leads me to believe that other things are more interesting, such as protecting nature.

• 1015

I would like the officials to talk about this issue. Once this Act has protected fish and zones, how will it protect the fishers? We will also have to find the word “fisher” somewhere in this bill and ensure that the individual, the human being, will be able to continue earning his or her living despite all of the obstacles that have been created as a result of this legislation.

I will be focussing on these three questions as I analyze the legislation.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bernier.

Mr. King, if you can answer those, fine, but if you can't, we're certainly willing to give Mr. Bernier the assurance that if he has witnesses he wants to bring in, we're certainly willing to hear them on the review of the act.

Mr. King.

Mr. Matthew King: Mr. Chairman, I would propose to take a stab at them this morning and leave it to the committee, obviously, to decide whether or not you want to hear more testimony on this.

Let me start with the second question first, which refers to, I believe, the portion of the act that deals with marine service fees, a very important issue not just for fishermen but for ocean users in general.

Right now, I believe, we are in the second year of a three-year freeze on marine service fees. During that period...and the reason I didn't mention this in detail myself is that this particular aspect falls under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, who is implementing this particular part of the act.

As I say, the commissioner of the coast guard has established a pretty extensive marine advisory body, with which he is consulting on the future of marine service fees. As I mentioned, all the while these fees are frozen.

I believe, but I'm not totally certain, that this joint Canadian Coast Guard marine advisory board is in the process of finalizing or has just finalized a report on their findings, and I would imagine that the commissioner of the coast guard will be in a position to speak to that report in the not-too-distant future.

As I say, it is a pretty important part of the legislation, but as I understood my instructions, I was asked to come to speak to the oceans management strategy in particular.

I'm going to ask Camille to have a go at the first question and see where that takes us.

[Translation]

Ms. Camille Mageau: Mr. Bernier's question deals with section 29, and I understand his interpretation completely. The oceans management strategy encompasses much more than the conservation measures you listed.

Indeed, Bill C-8 calls for the creation of marine conservation areas. This is one of the items we discussed with Mr. Cummins. There is a whole range of measures available to federal, provincial and regional governments that they can use in order to take conservation and protective action. So there is no problem there.

We could quickly provide your committee with the list as well as information about the integration process we have implemented.

You must not simply read section 29 and think that it applies exclusively to conservation. You must consider the other aspect that ties into your third question, namely, what steps do we take to recognize the rights of fishers and their need to earn a living while at the same time recognizing the rights of other users of both the coastal and ocean environment?

All of these different aspects are part and parcel of the overall oceans strategy, which deals with sustainable development, conservation and ecosystem protection as well as economic development of the coastal regions. All of these things must be considered as a whole, as something which cannot be dissected into different parts that can then be left to decide. We have to consider all of these aspects together, as a seamless picture.

We will send you the information that pertains to your first question and we would be happy to discuss the other two points you raised at another time.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bernier, one last question.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Mr. Chairman, you can tell me when we will be hearing from representatives from the Coast Guard. I don't understand why we didn't call witnesses this morning who could have covered all three parts of the Act.

• 1020

From the beginning, we had acknowledged that Part I merely repeated the words found in international legislation, whereas Part II describes a management strategy. I don't understand the coordination or catalyst. Like Mr. Cummins, I'm trying to find out who is leading. At any rate, we seem to have got off on the wrong foot.

When we examined the Oceans Act, the issue that upset the apple cart revolved around the users of the services provided by the Coast Guard. I would like to, once again, express how frustrated I am this morning and state that we have got off on the wrong foot and that, once again, the waters are being muddied.

Mr. McDougall is in the position of Acting Director General. All of our witnesses here, this morning, are from the oceans sector, but no one works in the field of service management per se. This is what I would like to understand.

[English]

The Chair: I don't think there's really a question, in that as a steering committee we will meet on further witnesses. If you want to propose more, Yvan, we're certainly willing to have a look at that. Given the broadness of Oceans Act, we don't expect to be able to deal with it in one session in any event. Certainly we do need to hear from the coast guard; we have a few little glitches in eastern Canada as well.

Are there any questions from the government side?

Mr. Gilmour.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): I'd like to expand on the sewage issue from the point of view that if this committee were to recommend a minimum limit of sewage, whether it's primary or secondary...and I recognize that it would involve huge cost implications. Would that be appropriate in the Oceans Act? Would it be appropriate in the Fisheries Act? Where would be the best...? I mean, we're dealing with the Oceans Act, so would it be the Oceans Act in which that type of legislation would go into place or would it be some other act?

Mr. Matthew King: That too is a very good question. The issue of municipal sewage is unique because it tends to come from the end of a pipe, and when pollution comes from the end of a pipe it is typically captured under section 36 of the Fisheries Act, which prevents the deposit of deleterious materials. That being said, if you were just going to get after that specific issue of municipal sewage, you could probably cover it quite adequately through the Fisheries Act.

There's a sort of side issue attached to that, Mr. Gilmour, and that is that we in the department continue to emphasize the need for accelerated, more aggressive science on this. We have generated a certain body of science on the issue of municipal effluents over the last couple of years, but we think, and our scientists believe, that we have to do a little more before we can begin to fully understand the impact of an emission on an ecosystem-wide basis. So that's what we're doing. That's where we're trying to focus some of our science efforts now.

The act does have the ability for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in consultation with other governments and with stakeholders, to establish marine environmental guidelines. These guidelines, rather than pertaining to the end of the pipe, would pertain to the overall health of a given ecosystem. If that were the case, we would be better off to use the Oceans Act, which can provide for these types of regulation.

The advantage of using the Oceans Act in this particular situation would be like...for example, it's estimated that 80% of the pollution in the near shore comes from land-based activities. It's certain that municipal effluents are a key contributor to that, but there are many other land-based contributors to near-shore pollution. You can think of 2,000 cars parked in a parking lot in a shopping centre when there's a huge rainstorm, sewers get flooded, and all of this pollution is washed out through drainpipes into the ocean. That's equally an important source of pollution, which we wouldn't capture through the act. You could get at that through the new Oceans Act, for certain.

• 1025

Mr. Bill Gilmour: Okay, because I do believe that Victoria, for example....

And I recognize, Mr. Carson, that you're saying the Capital Regional District is going after the heavy metals and this type of thing, but it's a philosophical question: is it environmentally correct to flush raw sewage into the ocean or is it not? That's a question this committee should probably have a look at. We have the fisheries minister saying he wants to deal with it—and I think he does—and on the other side, we have the environment minister, whose riding is Victoria, saying it's okay to flush your toilet into the ocean.

I believe this committee has the opportunity to make some recommendation as to what is appropriate for Halifax or Sydney or Victoria. We cannot, in my view, continue to carry on just ignoring the ocean. The populations are growing, and what might have been okay in 1920 is not, I think, okay for 2020. I appreciate your point of view, because I think this is the vehicle through which we could deal with it when we get witnesses in front of us in the near future to explore this.

The Chair: Before we go to Peter, I think you have a responsibility for this area, but we get a lot of calls in eastern Canada on Georges Bank. Derek Wells is heading up the “no rigs” group there, where the Americans have put on the moratorium. I'm not sure where we sit at the moment. Did we make a decision on that? Also, there is the issue of seismic testing in the Northumberland Strait off Cape Breton. Where are those two issues at the moment?

What is your responsibility on those two issues? I guess the question is really to Faith. One of the problems we had in Georges Bank is that the Minister of Natural Resources seemed to be—somewhat—the lead on it for final authorization, and fishermen and the people in the communities were complaining. What's your authority there?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: As Mr. King mentioned at the outset in one of his earlier responses to one of the questions, the regulatory structure that currently exists on the east coast and particularly off Nova Scotia is that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board is the regulator of oil and gas activity in that offshore area. That includes responsibility for environmental management.

Having said that, though, DFO works very closely with the board. We are members on two of their advisory committees—the environmental coordinating committee and the fisheries committee—and have been working with them very closely, particularly over the last few years, in terms of the research we've been doing and in terms of highlighting other areas of additional research needed to ensure that oil and gas development proceeds in a sustainable way.

In response to the two specific areas that you mentioned, in terms of Georges Bank, the Government of Canada, with the Province of Nova Scotia, has decided to extend the moratorium on Georges Bank, and in terms of the situation in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, the oil and gas board has in fact issued a lease for parcel 1 in western Cape Breton, as you know.

Our involvement right now is to provide advice to the board on sensitive areas in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, looking at existing information that DFO has collected over the years, and also working with the board on an additional study that will be done in that area. As well, we are also providing advice on how, if and when seismic testing goes ahead, we can mitigate the impacts of that seismic testing by time of year, location, or time of day adjustments to the seismic activity.

I think we have a very productive working relationship with the board and have a very strong role to play in providing them with advice on potential environmental impacts of their activities.

The Chair: One of the problems, though, is the pressure for economic opportunities in terms of the oil and gas industry. Has the Government of Canada really given away its authority to the board?

• 1030

Ms. Faith Scattolon: My understanding of how the board is established is that both the Minister of Natural Resources and the minister of the Nova Scotia petroleum directorate have a veto authority on fundamental decisions that are actually described in the legislation. So I believe issues like the decision to put a particular area up for lease would be considered fundamental decisions, and the Minister of Natural Resources would have authority to veto such a decision.

The Chair: I have one last question on the Georges Bank. For how long has the moratorium been put in place? I've heard different views on this, even from the government itself. Is it the same timeframe as in the U.S., or is ours renewable after a period of years? Is it 10 years?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Yes, I believe the decision was the same.

The Chair: So it's definitive for 10 years.

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: If I may, I would like to ask a brief question because you have just talked about a problem with respect to territories.

Part I of the Oceans Act refers to different territories. It was either early this week or at the end of last week that I read an article in the Telegraph-Journal stating that Brian Tobin had asked that the Laurentian sub-basin issue be resolved quickly in order to put an end to the conflict between his province and Nova Scotia. What was he talking about exactly?

He asked the federal government to make a decision and to appoint an arbitrator. When two provinces have differing opinions about the way that a resource, found in the middle of their territories, is to be harvested, can they turn to the provisions of the Oceans Act? Should we not instead be looking at international law and the concept of equidistance? How does this work? Where will Mr. Tobin and his counterpart from Nova Scotia be able to find a solution? This conflict has been dragging on for two years and the people who want to obtain an exploration licence don't know where they should apply. Will the Oceans Act enable us to resolve this conflict?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. King.

Mr. Matthew King: I obviously have not seen the article in question, but I think it has to do with the division that was established that separated the offshore oil, the Nova Scotia board from the Newfoundland board. I think that was prescribed domestically. If there's an issue with that, again I have not read the article so I don't really have a sense of it.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): I think it can only be resolved by the Minister of Natural Resources and appointing an arbitrator. I think that's what's proposed in this case. Whether there has been an arbitrator appointed I'm not sure, but I think that's what's intended to happen.

Mr. Matthew King: Yes.

Mr. Bill Matthews: Obviously the two provinces can't resolve it. I think the Minister of Natural Resources can appoint an arbitrator to make a decision or to rule.

The Chair: Thank you, Bill.

Mr. Bernier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: I agree with you that we need to appoint an arbitrator, Bill, but what interests me most is the mechanism that they will use. I want to know which legislation he will turn to or which process he will follow. Resolving border problems is always an interesting task. I would like to know what the answer is, especially since, this time around, I'm not involved in this issue. I could play the role of a neutral and very attentive observer.

[English]

The Chair: Yvan, when were you ever neutral?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Bernier: No, but I am curious.

[English]

Mr. Bill Matthews: Only when it pertains to Labrador.

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: But I didn't receive an answer. What is the mechanism?

The Chair: Okay, go ahead. Mr. King.

Mr. Matthew King: I'll take a crack at it, but we'll certainly undertake to get back with more information on this.

As Mr. Matthews says, an arbitrator will be appointed. One thing you need to keep in mind is that the Oceans Act establishes our external boundaries. It's not concerned with the establishment of internal boundaries.

It has been a long time since I've looked at the legislation that established both boards. Quite frankly, I don't remember how lines of authority were drawn. So I think we would be on safer ground to go back and take a look and maybe return with some information to give a more fulsome response.

Mr. Yvan Bernier: Merci.

• 1035

The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry, I had to leave and come back.

First, on the question of the ballast exchange, is Canada contemplating making it a mandatory exercise?

Secondly, in response to what Faith said about the fact that the Minister of Natural Resources can make the ultimate decision or has veto power as to whether or not seismic exploration can happen, is that correct?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: The Minister of Natural Resources has veto power related to something called “fundamental decisions”, which are spelled out in the board. I'm not intimately familiar with the legislation, but I believe once a particular lease is issued, the minister's veto power may in fact be circumscribed to some degree, so we'd have to go back and look at the legislation, because what that veto power can apply to is described.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: The point to my questioning is that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has ultimate responsibility for protection of fish and fish habitat. Is that correct?

Ms. Faith Scattolon: Yes.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yet when it comes to seismic exploration, that's joint. As the chairman is saying, hasn't the department actually given away some of its authority by allowing the province and the Nova Scotia offshore petroleum board more powers in saying yes or no?

When those leases were granted on the Cabot Block, Manning MacDonald was the minister in the Liberal Party of the province. He granted those leases just before the election. We're all saying there was no environmental process done on this project, and we have documents saying the project doesn't meet certain environmental criteria. So there's no environmental assessment. A full-blown one has to be done.

We had a discussion a while ago with the Department of Natural Resources in Nova Scotia about the Liscomb Game Sanctuary. About 55% or 60% of it has now been clearcut. They are saying they have responsibility for the animals but not for their habitat. What I'm hoping is that this doesn't happen as well, that you have responsibility for the oceans but not for the fish in the sea, that kind of thing.

Ultimately, doesn't the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, through the mandate of the legislation that he has, have final power to say yes or no to any work within the ocean that could cause disruptions to lobster grounds, herring grounds, spawning grounds, and so on? Isn't that under the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?

The Chair: Peter, I guess it's in the water column.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Yes, but my point is she's saying the Minister of Natural Resources can veto under certain aspects, but doesn't the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have the final say about protection of spawning grounds, for example?

Mr. Matthew King: Absolutely.

My response would be that under subsection 35(1) of the act, the minister has the obligation to ensure that no activity in a marine area either destroys or alters fisheries habitat—

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

Mr. Matthew King: —unless that person or that group has an authorization list under subsection 35(2) of the act, which means that to respect the Fisheries Act an environmental assessment would have to take place. As the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we would have to look at a project or a proponent and determine first of all whether or not there was going to be a harmful alteration of fish habitat. If there was to be a harmful alteration of fish habitat, our no-net-loss policy for the protection of habitat would kick in, which means we would have to decide whether or not what the proponent was proposing was mitigable vis-à-vis the protection of habitat. If it was, then we would proceed to issue a permit to alter habitat.

The offshore boards are established in mirror legislation both in the House of Commons and in the provincial legislature in question, but none of that has anything to do with impeding in any way the mandate of other federal ministers, in this case the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Do you want to add anything?

Mr. Daniel McDougall: If I could provide a bit of a summary for these three types of issues, we're talking about municipal sewage, which is introduction to the oceans, which is a joint problem among provinces, the federal government, and municipalities. As well, there are broader introductions of deleterious substances, if you will, from other than point sources. It's agricultural runoff, it's runoff from improperly treated sewage, improper land practices. We're talking about the boundaries between jurisdictions offshore for the determination of oil and gas leases, which aren't necessarily connected to the Oceans Act per se, and we are now talking about the issuance of seismic permits under those offshore acts again.

• 1040

Those three things together go effectively to the heart of what the Oceans Act is all about. The Oceans Act, when it comes right down to it, is about collaboration and cooperation. It's about bringing all of the parties together that have a say in individual decision-making, so that when they make their individual decisions based on their own legislative authorities and legislative mandates, be it provincial, municipal or federal, the broader needs of the whole area, the whole ecosystem in question, is brought into play, so that the individual decisions are not made on a one-off basis without taking into account the broader implications of those decisions.

That, to my mind, goes to the heart of what this act is all about and what sections 29, 30 and 31 are really about. It's that need for integrated management planning, so that you bring all of these parties together, so that the people who are affected by the decisions have a say in how that decision is being made, so that you are looking not only at the economic consequences of a decision but also at the social, economic, and cultural aspects of a decision. It's that approach of trying to balance these needs that is really the power of this act, I think.

The Chair: Mr. McDougall, on your point, though, what this committee is dealing with is a three-year statutory review of the act. Do you see some problem areas in the act that we should indeed dig further into or call witnesses on, so that we get through this in total? Does there need to be more power vested in the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, or is it inherent in what's already there?

Mr. Matthew King: I would say, Mr. Chairman—and indeed I think I touched on this in our opening presentation—that the challenge of bringing 23 departments, 23 mandates together just inside the federal family to think in a new and evolving context of an oceans management strategy is considerable and should be completely honest. You don't change ingrained habits overnight.

For a group like our own, which is a new addition to the department, it takes a certain amount of time before we're able to establish our bona fides and insert ourselves fully into the policy development process. If the committee were to focus on the issue, as one of the first steps, of how to better ensure federal coordination, that would probably be a useful thing to do. I would imagine a number of interesting questions in and around the mandates of a critical numbers of ministers would be important, and quite frankly, as we've identified, we think that sense of federal coordination in the first instance is critical to the development of the fully functioning OMS.

It's not for me to say, obviously, but I shouldn't think that the committee would be wasting its time in looking at that sort of question.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. King.

Mr. Cummins.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you.

I certainly appreciate your comments this morning, all of you. I think you're making a good effort to provide us with the answers to some of these questions. But I am still confused on a number of issues.

The one that's beginning to bother me is the notion of pollution. My understanding in the past was that the fisheries minister, under the Fisheries Act, had authority to deal with those issues. Is that still the case, or are we...?

Mr. Matthew King: Are we referring specifically to municipal sewage?

Mr. John Cummins: Yes, that is where I was going. Is that the case or not, then?

• 1045

Mr. Matthew King: For any company or any municipality that is.... The Fisheries Act is prohibitive. Section 36 of the act is prohibitive. It says that you are not allowed to deposit a deleterious material into the waterway unless you have, under a second section, under section 36, a permit to do so from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Examples of where permits are given are things like pulp and paper effluent regulations or metal mining effluent regulations, where, on a science basis, a determination is made as to what is an acceptable, if I can use that word, level of material deposit into a waterway, what level will be tolerated.

If your question, Mr. Cummins, is with respect to whether the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans still has the ability to regulate municipal sewage outflows, the answer is yes.

Mr. John Cummins: But it's under the Fisheries Act?

Mr. Matthew King: That's right.

Mr. John Cummins: What is your involvement with this pollution, then? I'm still not clear on that.

Mr. Matthew King: I should just say too, just to further complicate the matter—and I apologize for that—

Mr. John Cummins: We're under the Oceans Act, that is.

Mr. Matthew King: First of all, section 36 of the Fisheries Act, since about 25 years, has been delegated to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister of Fisheries remains accountable for section 36, but to all intents and purposes, decisions taken under section 36 are taken by the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. John Cummins: Okay.

Mr. Matthew King: In terms of the Oceans Act—and I'm going to ask Camille to help me out a bit here—the Oceans Act provides for the establishment of marine environmental quality guidelines, and unlike the end-of-pipe situation that the Fisheries Act monitors, the Oceans Act has the capacity to monitor the water quality, if you will, on an ecosystem-wide basis.

Now again, picking up on the point Mr. McDougall made about the integrated management thrust of the act, as I understand it, a group of stakeholders—a province, the federal government—could come together, and one of the things they would discuss in the context of an integrated management plan for a given geographic space would be certain water quality standards that they, as a community and as governments, wanted to maintain. Unlike the Fisheries Act, which deals with end-of-pipe or with direct deposits, the marine environmental quality guidelines would deal with the net effect of all deposits in a given ecosystem.

So this group could come together and say their guidelines need to be structured so they attain an extra wide level of either cleanliness or of deposit. And then all of the decisions that are involved in the management plan for that geographic system would, in some way or another, have to relate to these guidelines that had been established by these communities.

In other words, if we agreed at this table that we wanted to have x percent or x degree of clarity in our water and one of our colleagues said “Well, we want to increase our pulp and paper effluents this year for x or y or z reasons”, it would be up to the rest of the table to say “Well, if we do that, then we're going to decrease a deposit on this side, or a deposit on this side, to maintain steady MEQ guidelines.” That's the way I've come to understand this process.

Can you add to that, Camille?

Ms. Camille Mageau: The only thing I would add.... And congratulations.

Mr. John Cummins: Thank you. [Inaudible—Editor]

Ms. Camille Mageau: The only thing I would add is that a community can set its goals, its objectives; however, the role of DFO and of Environment Canada and of the provincial environmental agencies would be to advise on what that environment, that ecosystem, can withstand.

So you may want to discharge raw sewage and municipal effluents; however, our role at the table and the role of the environmental agencies and resource management agencies around the table would be to tell the assembled community, “That receiving environment cannot tolerate this load. If you do that, then the sustainability of your resource is imperilled.” In that case, our role is to advise on the ability of the ecosystem to withstand that stress, or to make a statement that “It's already stressed. The allowable discharges that you have authorized, people around the table, are such that it's having a negative impact on your resource and on your system.”

So we need to ratchet back to something that is manageable by the system, and then we go on to manage ongoing and future activities based on the ability of that system to withstand that stress.

• 1050

So Mr. King is right in that the community can set its objectives, but our role is to advise as to whether those objectives can be met and what is required to meet those objectives.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Mageau.

Very quickly, Mr. Cummins. We have to get Lou in here for a short one as well.

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

As for the boundaries of the act, the act covers the oceans. It is the Oceans Act. So below high tide level, say, in the case of the Fraser River, that is up to Mission. You wouldn't enter into the fresh water. I presume the act wouldn't apply in a tidal water like the Fraser River; it would be merely the salt water. Is that correct?

Mr. Daniel McDougall: The act per se doesn't apply, but if you look at the act in terms of its speaking out on the need to collaborate and to integrate, it speaks to reaching out and cooperating with those bodies that do have decision-making authority for things that eventually end up in salt water. That is why it is broader than just the marine environment itself in terms of reaching out and involving them in the decision-making process.

The Chair: Mr. Sekora, very quick.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I listen here today and have listened for some time to some presenters. When you are talking about the environment minister and about the fisheries minister, it seems as if there is a big overlap of bureaucracy. Maybe I shouldn't say it that way, but surely to God some of that could be streamlined to make your life a lot easier. Maybe some of those bills should be put under one minister rather than having....

Do you know something? I can see mass confusion when there is a problem. Is it the Minister of the Environment who should look at it? No, it is Fisheries. Well, it might take two or three weeks for Fisheries to look at it. Which department is going to work on it? Then try to get two departments together. It looks like a real mess to me.

Maybe you can explain to me why we have not tried to get some of these bills under one minister through this committee or some other one. It has to be streamlined. We can't continue to go the way we are going. It looks as if we are operating in the 16th century. We are now in the 21st century. We should be streamlining.

Maybe somebody can explain that to me. I think it is very important.

The Chair: Mr. King or Mr. Carson.

Mr. Matthew King: Let me start off and then I'll ask Mr. Carson to fill in. You can tell, Mr. Chair, from my colleague's last comment, that I have just started this job. I think I've caused them a lot of extra grief in the last couple of months.

The Chair: It's trial by fire, Mr. King. Don't worry about it.

Mr. Matthew King: I understand the nature of your question, and as someone who has spent 15 years dealing in interdepartmental battles and wars, I can surely count myself among those who would do almost anything to reduce the number.

On the environmental side, it is true that it can be a little confusing, particularly if you are not immersed in this on a day-to-day basis. But I have to tell you, for what it is worth, my personal bias is that I like the idea that certain ministers carrying certain natural resource-type portfolios have included in their legislation responsibility for environmental protection. To me, in my world, that goes some way to eliminate a discord where a minister, say a Minister of Natural Resources, would have to have no regard for the environmental impacts of his or her decisions and leave that to other minister. I don't know where that would get us in the end. It would be a little easier to understand on paper, but I don't know if the ultimate goal of better protection of the environment would be served in the way we want it to be.

I will ask Dick to jump onto that.

The Chair: We do have another committee coming in here, so we have to vacate the premises pretty quickly.

Mr. Carson.

Mr. Dick Carson: I will try to keep this very short.

I am going to date myself a bit with this remark, but I remember back to a time, when I first started with the department, when it was called the Department of Fisheries and the Environment. It was at a later evolution that the Environment Canada ministry was created. Environment Canada at an earlier date also included Parks Canada as part of its ministry, and that has now become a separate standing agency.

It's clear that life is more complicated now than it was 25 or 30 years ago, and I am not going to say how far back that goes. But one of the points that I think are really clear with this, and that I have really appreciated about working with the Oceans Act, is that it compels us to work together with these other agencies in a much more real way than we ever have.

One further point I would like to make—and this is in relation to perhaps one of the questions and comments that Mr. Bernier raised a couple of times—is on the significance of part III of the Oceans Act. That part of the act was largely created as a consolidation of a variety of different pieces of legislation coming from a number of different sources, and one of the advantages of establishing the Oceans Act in Canada is that it brings together a number of different pieces.

• 1055

But I appreciate your point—and I think it's extremely well taken—that we have to force ourselves at the federal level to work on a more horizontal basis and work with our fellow agencies so we don't have the overlap, the duplication, and, at times, the conflict. In the short time that I've been working in this particular role, I've found that has been taking place.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'm sorry we don't have more time. We do appreciate....

Okay, Mr. McDougall or Mr. King.

Mr. Daniel McDougall: It's just on the one question that Mr. Stoffer had on ballast.

I don't have the final answer for you right here. I'll have to get back to you on it. I would note, though, that it's not just the regulatory aspect, there's a very strong scientific aspect to this as well. We've been working very closely to develop new measures to mitigate the effects of ballast transfer as well. So I'll get back to you with some further information on that. There's an interesting project underway on the west coast, for example.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

Mr. Matthew King: Mr. Chairman, we'll take this question on board. We'll assemble a number of other questions that were asked today, and we'd like to come back with them. We'll work with your office to have the responses furnished to the committee as soon as possible.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. King. There are three or four issues I've made note of here—and I'll not go through them due to time—on which we do need responses. So if you could respond, we'll either coordinate another hearing.... I think when we look through this transcript as well, we'll be wanting to bring forward some other witnesses on this issue.

It has been a good hearing, and we appreciate very much your coming today. Thank you, one and all.

To committee members, due to Mr. Stoffer's good work in the House, the motion on concurrence in our first report carried, so we will be travelling on aquaculture, the aboriginal fishing strategy, and the Oceans Act. That means a number of us have to be in Campbell River on Sunday evening, so we need to make some quick decisions this afternoon. So we'll meet in my office, the fisheries critics—the steering committee, I guess—at 3:30 this afternoon. That's Room 732, Confederation Building.

With that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you once again, Mr. King and witnesses.