CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday November 19, 1997

• 1534

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

[Translation]

We will begin studying Bill C-7.

[English]

We're going to be studying Bill C-7, clause by clause. We are grateful to the officials from the ministry who are here to assist us. I'll be sure to give you the right titles: Mr. Tom Lee, assistant deputy minister for Parks Canada;

[Translation]

Mr. Laurent Tremblay, Executive Director for Quebec, at Parks Canada, and Mr. Jean Rhéaume, legal adviser, Department of Justice.

• 1535

[English]

We are ready to start. I asked the members whether there were amendments, and I understood....

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just to make a very brief statement, you'll recall that in my speech in the House of Commons I asked for a certain number of things. I was concerned that the committee was going to be, as it were, pushing this through.

We've had this discussion; I won't bore you with the same dialogue we've had previously. But I want to state for the record that subject to whatever may come out by way of debate—so I would reserve my position that I may take part—it is my intent really to act in my capacity here as an observer of the process. But, once again, I would protest that I don't believe we have taken sufficient time. I believe we are in a process of using the committee as a rubber stamp. I find that really unfortunate, because I too believe that the bill is absolutely supportable and will probably be recommending to my colleagues that we support the bill in third reading. But as I say, I am disappointed with the process we have undertaken, and I do want to put that on the record.

The Chairman: Monsieur Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to obtain the list of witnesses suggested by the member from the Reform Party, as he has had ample opportunity to do so?

Mr. Jim Abbott: That's an interesting point of debate, Mr. Chairman. I think with the fact that the committee had decided we were going to be going to clause-by-clause today and had no desire or intent to hear witnesses, as I'm sure we could discover from the Hansard of the last meeting, I have not taken the time because it would have been a waste of time to have compiled a list of witnesses.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Two weeks ago, if I recall, every member of this committee was offered the opportunity of suggesting potential witnesses. I am asking if there is a list of such submitted by the member from the Reform Party.

Mr. Jim Abbott: No, I have not done that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: If my memory serves me right, and so that we can proceed, we did have a discussion at the last meeting when Bill C-7 was considered, where members voted on the basis that Bill C-7 had undergone extensive consultations for several years, including a major set of consultations in 1993, and that there had been a very bona fide debate in the House in which all parties took part. Members voted to go on with clause-by-clause.

So I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Abbott, but our task today is to go on with the clause-by-clause.

The bill is before you. You have the officials of the ministry to assist you with any information you want. We can proceed with each clause, clause by clause.

We'll start with consideration of clause 1. We'll postpone clause 1 because it's a title and we will leave it until the end. We will move on, then, to clause 2.

• 1540

(Clauses 2 to 27 inclusive agreed to)

(Schedule I agreed to)

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall the preamble of the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Excuse me, but could I speak to that?

The Chairman: Yes, of course. We will hold on the adoption of the preamble, and we'll allow Mrs. Lill to speak.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I was sort of asleep at the switch there. I also would like to speak to the purpose. There are a couple of additions that have been suggested to me on both the preamble and the purpose, and I thought we could discuss them. Is that appropriate now?

The Chairman: Do you have any amendments to propose?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I do, in fact.

The Chairman: I asked the members if they had amendments, but there's nothing to stop you from presenting them now anyway.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Is there a fax machine? I have two copies of them. Obviously that's not enough here, but....

The Chairman: Just hold it a minute. Mrs. Lill, understand that I'm trying to help you. In regard to not having them before on the purpose of the act, we have to reopen it by unanimous consent now that we've carried it.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay, but I must say that—

The Chairman: One thing at a time. The preamble is not carried yet. Let's take it first, and wait to hear what you have to say.

Ms. Wendy Lill: All right.

What I would have to say would an insertion to the preamble:

WHEREAS the Governments of Canada and of Quebec recognize the necessity, both for the present and for future generations, of protecting the environment

I would like to insert there

to conserve and maintain the integrity of the natural ecosystems within the park's boundaries,

and then continue

the flora and fauna and the exceptional natural resources....

The Chairman: Mrs. Lill, can you give us your text so that it can be photocopied? We can then give it to the members so that people can digest it.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay.

• 1545

The Chairman: Meanwhile, Mr. Lee, you've heard this. Do you have any remarks or advice to give us on this? Do you have any reactions?

Mr. Thomas Lee (Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks, Department of Canadian Heritage): I would just like it clarified in order to make sure that I understood what was said. My understanding is that the primary intent is to insert a clause to conserve and maintain the integrity of natural resources. That is the major item.

The Chairman: It's “natural ecosystems”.

Mr. Thomas Lee: “...and natural ecosystems”?

The Chairman: No, just “natural ecosystems”.

Mr. Thomas Lee: Okay.

Ms. Wendy Lill: The point is to strengthen that clause, obviously.

Mr. Thomas Lee: My comment on that, Mr. Chairman, is that the use of the words “integrity of the natural ecosystems” is a matter directly related to the concept of management of national parks. We use that term with regard to national parks and in the National Parks Act because the national parks are essentially resources that are—I don't want to use the words “frozen in time”, because they're not frozen in time—managed in a way that is totally in line with the natural processes of nature.

In the marine conservation areas, we use a different concept. The concept behind marine conservation areas incorporates very much the concept of models of sustainable use. The primary purpose is not to protect “a totally natural ecosystem”. There are commercial uses that occur within these areas, such as fisheries and so on. We therefore distinguish the two areas in that way, and I think it is an important distinction. These are not like national parks. They're not just set aside for that purpose. They are combinations of uses, and some portions of those areas contain that concept through zoning systems. But there is a substantial difference in philosophy between national parks and national marine conservation areas.

The Chairman: I apologize to the members. If anybody wants to speak to this, by all means feel very free to do so. Otherwise, Mrs. Lill, do you want to add something?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I guess what you're saying is that this concept is not as pristine, it's a different level of conservation. That's what you're telling us, that this has to sort of live side by side with all sorts of economic interests and commercial interests, so we really can't lock ourselves into preserving the integrity of the natural ecosystems.

Mr. Thomas Lee: Yes, that's what I was saying. There is a substantive difference, and in my opinion it could lead to confusion if we used that term in two different ways in two different acts. It would present some difficulties.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Well, I'm really putting forward a concern that you have obviously heard before. I put it forward for the committee because a lot of people are certainly concerned that this be strengthened in this act.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I'd like to ask a question of Ms. Lill.

Are there other issues that are possibly connected to this as well, or is that a stand-alone concern? I don't know if you have other concerns, but are there other things that relate specifically to this?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Actually, these are just concerns around the preamble and the purpose, and they both have to do with maintaining the integrity of natural ecosystems.

Mr. John Godfrey: So it's the same for both issues.

Ms. Wendy Lill: It's the same principle. I certainly am in support of this park, but I just would like to see some strengthening of the language at the beginning.

[Translation]

The Chairman. Mr. Saada.

Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Since this bill is the result of negotiations with the government of Quebec and since there are differences with regard to the actual principle or the concept that it is based upon, is there not a risk that changing concepts in midstream may bring into question the principle that formed the basis of the agreement between the governments of Quebec and Canada, as to the substance of the preamble?

• 1550

Mr. Jean Rhéaume (Legal adviser, Department of Justice): That could certainly have an impact. The main problem is that normally the preservation of the ecosystem or ecosystems will vary from zone to zone. In some zones, usage will be very intensive, or at least more intensive than in others, and we do not want a paragraph in the preamble to have an impact on zones that we would not want to see be affected in this way.

Quebec's preamble is very similar to our own. They have combined two small paragraphs, but the text is basically the same.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): There's the preamble, and then there's the specific direction. By having this in the preamble, it's not really an interpretive insertion. It's more or less a guideline and a heads-up. How does this hurt in the sense that it's meant to set a benchmark or a standard or a heads-up? We understand that there's the specific clause-by-clause interpretive section. In an overall sort of sense, though, we want you all to sort of be really sensitive to the natural integrity of the ecosystem. Because it's in the preamble, I don't see how it really takes away from what exists or from the basic direction and basic things that are happening there now.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: If you look at clause 4, you will see that we not only have conservation as a kind of purpose, we also have protection and use. If we just speak of conservation in the preamble, some people may think this is the main focus of the bill, but it's not the main focus of the bill. The main focus of the bill is in clause 4. We have the three elements of the purpose. It's not that kind of a one-aspect purpose. If we put too much emphasis on one of them in the preamble, it may be detrimental to the interpretation accorded clause 4.

The Chairman: Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): It's just a quick question. If we put forth such an amendment, would this basically have to go back to the Quebec government as well, in order for them to make the same amendment to their act?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: It would not place an obligation on them, but it would be a bit strange to have two different texts in the two different acts.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, my point is that if I understand this correctly, we may be putting too much restriction there because of the unique nature of a marine park.

That was just a question for clarification. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I think the essential issue is that the preamble should be consistent with the contents. If you've created two different kinds of beasts with different ground rules, the ground rules are set out quite clearly under clause 5. There are four different kinds of zones that spell out the various usages. I think it would be unhelpful to pass a preamble that is inconsistent with the main body of the text.

The Chairman: Mr. Rhéaume, could I ask you a couple of questions?

I subscribe to what Mrs. Lill says 100%. I think we all do. We're just trying to see that we do something that is going to make this bill go forward. If by any chance there is a problem because it has to go back to Quebec and then the park doesn't happen, we'll all feel sad about it. We're just trying to find something that will give you comfort that the protection of the ecosystems is taking place.

I want to ask you two questions, Mr. Rhéaume. First, on the wording that is in the preamble now, is the wording in the Quebec legislation similar, or similar in intent, or similar in text?

• 1555

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: The first “whereas” is exactly the same as the one we have in our federal act.

The Chairman: I'm at this clause, Mr. Rhéaume. I'm at this particular clause. The idea is the same.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: Before I forget, the one point that the member of Parliament here wants to bring forward can already be achieved through clause 4 of the bill, because the wording is there. We speak of conservation of the ecosystem in clause 4.

The Chairman: I was coming to that in my second question. If you look at the summary of the bill....

Ms. Lill, I think if by any chance you could follow this discussion it might help.

First of all, the whereas clause we're talking about is identical in the case of Quebec. The second thing is that when you look at the summary of the bill, the main points in this enactment are: provisions dealing with joint management; the drawing up and tabling in Parliament of management plans; the procedure to be used for changing park boundaries; the protection of ecosystems and the safety of park visitors. So somewhere or other in the bill we're talking about the protection of ecosystems already, which is in clause 4, I guess.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: That's right.

The Chairman: So in terms of the level of protection of the ecosystems, is there anywhere else, to your knowledge, in the bill that we refer to protection of the ecosystems, or is it in the purpose, clause 4?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: It is indirectly in clause 5, because in clause 5 we recognize different kinds of zoning, so it is there. And it will be specified further to the regulatory power in paragraphs 17(e) to (j). These are the provisions that will allow the specific protection of the ecosystems on a case-by-case basis. All those provisions on zoning are specifically there to make sure that the protection will be possible, but taking into account the specific ecosystem in each case.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you.

As you say, I think we all subscribe to the intent of Ms. Lill's concern there. I would just note there will be other opportunities to move the amendment. Given what Mr. Lee said, I take it the concern of Mr. Lee was that this is the exact same wording as exists in another act. If much of the intent is included in this act anyway, maybe with some time we—Ms. Lill or whoever—can come up with some other wording that might alleviate Mr. Lee's concern, allow us today to proceed, and come up with that preferred wording at another time. It's just a suggestion.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: In terms of the idea that this bill should refer to the Parks Canada guiding principles, I'm wondering if that in fact is happening at this point in time. In your estimation, is that reflected right in the opening of this bill?

Mr. Thomas Lee: There is no direct reference to the guiding principles in the bill per se. The guiding principles are a set of principles of policies that we operate under and—

Ms. Wendy Lill: Which override everything else? Would they override the terms?

Mr. Thomas Lee: No, they would not override the legislative base, but they're consistent with the legislative.... They elaborate on the legislative base. They help to interpret the legislative aspect. So in the policies on national marine conservation areas, there are descriptions of the interpretation of what we mean and what we're trying to do.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'll just say one more thing, and I'm not trying to be a problem, but I gather—

The Chairman: It's your full right to say whatever you want and to take your time. By all means, go ahead.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

There are persons concerned with the fact that what we need is a stronger preamble and purpose, which refer to the Parks Canada guiding principles. The purpose of that is to give legal strength to the conservation-oriented implementation of the act, and that's where they feel it should be happening. So I put that forward as an important concern.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Saada, have you requested the floor?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have a particular problem with the wording of this thing. There is a slight difference between the English and the French.

• 1600

The Chairman: Even before we get to that, I think the crux of the matter is...

[English]

Ms. Lill, could I make a suggestion to you? We have two possible alternatives. Admitting that we were to agree to insert these words in the bill, in effect what it means is that this preamble is exactly the same as the one already agreed to by Quebec and passed by Quebec. So what happens now is that the Quebec act has to be changed, and this one probably delayed as a result, I would think. Because the two in their component parts, the crucial parts, have to match, to be harmonized. Obviously there was a reason to harmonize this, so they did.

So would you be satisfied with us getting the assent of the committee to discuss clause 4, which has already been carried? I need unanimous consent to discuss clause 4 again. Maybe we could discuss clause 4 and your ideas together and see whether you get enough comfort in clause 4, after you've heard from Mr. Lee, Mr. Tremblay, and Mr. Rhéaume, that you are prepared then to move ahead. Because obviously if we change it we have to change the Quebec act in those very key parts, and it causes a huge problem.

So could we just leave this for now? I would like to ask the members if they would give unanimous consent to reopen clause 4 for discussion. Because obviously Ms. Lill wasn't aware of the procedure, otherwise she would have stopped it in its tracks. Is that okay?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill, I think what we should do now is get Mr. Tremblay, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Rhéaume to tell us whether the preamble and clause 4 together give you comfort enough for you to be able to accept them or whether you want to still move ahead, in which case we have to make a decision whether to accept your proposals or not.

Mr. Lee, do you want to talk to this? Or Mr. Tremblay?

Mr. Thomas Lee: I think we may all be able to contribute a little bit in terms of a response.

I think the key word in the purpose as it relates to the question relates to the level of protection of ecosystems. And to go back to some of my earlier comments, within a national marine conservation area there are varying levels of protection of ecosystems. There is the concept included under the National Parks Act that deals with the integrity of natural ecosystems, which means a naturally functioning ecosystem that is managed in a way in which only nature, not man, has the primary impact. This will not be possible to fully implement across the entire national marine conservation area. There may be portions of the natural ecosystem that can be managed to some degree of integrity, as we would interpret it under the National Parks Act, but you're always going to have the influence, for example, of fishing that is occurring or various activities of this nature that are occurring both within the marine conservation area and outside.

So the driving force here is the protection of ecosystems. There will be fully protected areas, but that is a little bit different from the concept of a fully protected ecosystem or ecological integrity.

So my response is I believe that within the context of national marine conservation areas, the bill does respond probably as fully as possible to the member's concern, but obviously that is a matter for her consideration. My colleagues may wish to add to that.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, as I said before, clause 4 already provides what the member of Parliament was asking for. The text is very clear. Clause 4 says it's “to increase...the level of protection...for conservation purposes” with respect to those ecosystems, and at the same time it allows the use that is already going on in the park.

• 1605

There have been a lot of discussions within the federal government, not only Parks but also Transport and other departments, and with Quebec on this wording to make sure it preserves the ongoing activity but also protects the ecosystem, if we need more protection, through regulations.

When I was mentioning the clauses on zoning and clause 17, I could have also brought your attention to paragraph 17(b), which speaks of the protection of the ecosystems. When we speak of the guiding principles of parks, in a way they're already indicated in paragraphs 17(a), 17(b), and 17(c), because they give the general scope of the regulations.

That's all I have to say. I think clause 4 is quite complete.

The Chairman: Mr. Tremblay, considering you were the federal negotiator with Quebec on the structuring of the park, if the joint resolve had been to complete protection of the ecosystem, un écosystème intégré, would not the park have been much smaller then? In other words, parks are different sizes, different types. Is that the way we should understand it?

[Translation]

Mr. Laurent Tremblay (Executive Director for Quebec, Parks Canada): One of the arguments that led us to open the boundaries of the park was precisely the fact that the ecosystem extended beyond the marine park, into the waters of the Saguenay. For instance, the movements of the belugas must be considered. We find their calving area at the mouth of the Sainte-Marguerite River, but they travel along the shoreline, almost as far as Saint-Fidèle.

Therefore, the first proposal regarding the park, which is to say only within the Saguenay itself, did not provide sufficient protection. We must also consider it a given that the resource, currently, is involved in a dynamic process. It is the nature of the resource to travel around. Let me give you an example.

In our inventories, we had identified the spawning grounds of herring and, within the confines of the zone, we had identified a sector in which we were protecting them. When we conducted monitoring a few years later, it was found that the location of the breeding ground had shifted.

This gives you a brief outline of the importance of having a more general framework for managing the ecosystem: we must not be too precise and have a mechanism that constrains the process too rigidly.

The Chairman: If I understand you correctly, the more you extend the park, the greater the chances that commercial activities will enter the picture, isn't that so?

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: Yes. First of all, it was necessary to try to protect as extensively as possible not only the elements as a whole that make up the ecosystem, but also all the activities that will take place there that could be modifying factors. This is part of the utilization aspect.

[English]

The Chairman: Paul, go ahead.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): On Ms. Lill's comments regarding the integrity of natural ecosystems, certainly paragraphs 17(b) and 17(c) very clearly identify that that is in place. The one point that perhaps Ms. Lill has a good point on is aiding the recovery of species and population designated at risk.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I agree with you and I think—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: With that last sentence, we all of a sudden assume a responsibility for the recovery of species and population designated at risk, and I'm curious what your opinions are on how that might affect adversely the act itself, or the integrity of the act.

Mr. Thomas Lee: We don't have the text.

The Chairman: We're going to give one to each of you. It's important that you have it.

• 1610

Mr. Thomas Lee: If I understood, the question is, by this particular clause protecting and aiding the recovery of species of populations designated at risk, is this element adequately covered in the current legislation?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: Populations that are already at risk are already protected by the Canada Wildlife Act and also by the WAPPRIITA, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. These acts already provide for protection of species at risk.

The problem, and the reason we did not put it in the act, is we wanted to protect not only species at risk, but even species that are right now commercially fished or, for example, birds that are affected by other activities. For hunting of birds, we have the Migratory Birds Convention Act coming into the picture. If those acts are not sufficient to protect the species at risk, then we will have regulations under this act, but otherwise the other acts are already enough to protect these.

As I said, on the question of pollution in the St. Lawrence or the Saguenay River, we can already use the Fisheries Act, for example, to protect the resource. If that is not enough, then we'll use this act, but usually this act is supposed to complement existing legislation, not replace it.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: My question was a little bit different from that. Does it impair the act at all, having that line in there? I'm sure, based on your comments, there are controls in place presently to govern. Certainly with regard to animals or species that are not at risk, you have that covered in protection of their ecosystems and elements of the ecosystems, and they would certainly fall into that category.

However, I'm coming back: does it risk or does it put into jeopardy the act or the integrity of the act by having that sentence in there?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: One of the legal problems is that we would have to define what we mean by species and populations designated at risk, because it may be that we have the definition coming from, for example, the Canada Wildlife Act or some other statute, but we are not sure. If we just put the expression here, it will have to have the same meaning as in the other act. There's a danger at times in introducing new wording. You have to wonder, is it according to the federal act, and do we have the same wording in the Quebec act? If the Quebec act defined it differently, would we have to speak—

Mr. Paul Bonwick: So the answer is yes, it could have an adverse effect.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: It could have an adverse effect, in short, yes.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I guess my understanding is that one of the impetuses for this park was to recover the population of the beluga whales, which is definitely a species at risk. So the question is, are we seeing within the language of this act something that is in fact going to put teeth to that particular concern people have had regarding the beluga whales?

We are, as we see, carving out a park. We're carving out a park from a region that already exists. We're not sticking a park up in a completely pristine wilderness, so it's not an easy task. I realize that. The danger in this activity is we are protecting, but to what degree? We're simply not willing to put a real commitment to degree. Who will lose out at a certain point in time in this kind of exercise? I believe it will be the beluga whales over another form of commercial fishing or something. So we just have to be very clear what we're really coming up with here.

I don't see this as a park that's going to protect beluga whales from what we're talking about now, unless I've taken a radical leap there. If we do want that, then we have to figure out how to get it in, if that was one of the reasons to start this whole exercise.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, there has been a bit of a leap here, because this park will be protecting the beluga whales. To draw the conclusion, because of a discussion in the last half-hour, that it won't is quite a bit off track here. All it's intended to do is provide a sanctuary for that, so I think we're misreading lines here, if I may be so bold.

• 1615

Ms. Wendy Lill: I don't see that. I've listened to our witnesses. They're talking about protecting ecosystems and preserving ongoing activities. These are—

A voice: We can defeat it—

Ms. Wendy Lill: But they're losing out, and we all know that. The beluga whales are losing out in this instance. That's a fact.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: Mr. Chairman, if you look at paragraph 17(b), once again we speak of “the protection of ecosystems and any elements”, so if there is a need to protect the beluga or any species we can use this provision to make a special regulation to protect it, and this can be done fast. Instead of mentioning species in the bill, we found it would be better to do it by regulations. With regulations you can protect not only beluga, but again, any fish, any marine mammal, any bird and any part of the ecosystem.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Rhéaume, you say that it is easier to proceed by way of regulation, but how can we be sure that this will work if we only use regulations? Who can guarantee to us that "any elements of ecosystems" will be interpreted in the sense you have just described? Where will that be in writing?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: Everyone agrees on the meaning of "elements of an ecosystem." The term encompasses all the animals and organisms that are part of the ecosystem.

Why is it preferable to proceed via regulation? As Ms. Tremblay explained, the elements of the ecosystem can change, as with the migrating locations of spawning grounds or the areas in which whales circulate. Therefore, it is preferable to proceed by way of regulation because that gives us more flexibility. We can do it by zone or by time of year. We have unlimited flexibility.

We must determine in collaboration with Quebec what we want to do in consultation with the local population, through the intervention of a coordinating committee. You can be sure that the federal government will not adopt regulations behind people's backs, as they say. All the stakeholders will be consulted. If people find that something must be done for the belugas, it will be done, but everyone will be consulted.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I understand this entire mechanism very well, but from what I understand of Ms. Lill's intervention, if the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage wants the belugas and other species to be protected because they are at risk... What guarantees do we have that your committee, with all its broad processes and after its wide public consultations, will really draft somewhere in some regulation that we have decided to protect the belugas? They might very well consider the belugas to be unimportant.

Mr. Laurent Tremblay: It will be necessary to indicate from the outset that the entire territory is being looked at with the aim of identifying all the resources that were in the ecosystem. We have indicated that in the marine zones, existing laws apply. Committees have sat with other departments to identify which existing resources were more vulnerable than others.

We have already analysed all the elements and the problems. The objective of the regulation is to seek out what is lacking in existing laws to give them greater protection or to solve a problem that has not been settled.

The Fisheries Act already has a conservation component, and this act will reinforce the protection aspect. We are even going to work on aspects such as harassment, the number of boats and the number of visitors, and we will make it possible to forbid, through zoning, the use of the territory during certain periods. Within the Saguenay, you have a beluga calving zone. We already know where it is located, and when the calving will occur. If it is observed that the periods of intense utilization are concordant with the zoning, the regulation will enable us to use guards to eliminate all traffic in the sector and thereby to protect this sector during the most active beluga calving periods.

• 1620

Earlier on, I gave you the example of the herring spawning grounds. As this is a dynamic environment, we must be constantly vigilant, sit down with other departments involved, conduct ongoing research to keep up to date and intervene with the Gouvernement du Québec on all these issues when problems arise.

The Chairman: This raises an important issue that requires clarification. Mr. Tremblay, Mr. Rhéaume, do the suggestions and recommendations of Ms. Lill extend the scope of the bill? Will they entail additional expenses? If this extends the scope of the bill, we will not be able to implement it. At this point, it is beyond the scope of the legislation. Mr. Lee, perhaps you should specify if there are additional expenses? In Mr. Rhéaume's opinion, does that extend the scope of the bill?

[English]

Mr. Thomas Lee: I will answer one part. In my opinion, the issue of maintaining the integrity of natural ecosystems would definitely broaden the bill.

Would it cause more expense? The answer is definitely yes. I don't even know, though, whether it would be attainable, Mr. Chairman. In a national conservation area I don't think you can attain the integrity of natural ecosystems, in the sense that we define and use those words “a national park”. I think you could spend all the money in the world trying to achieve it, but I don't think you could.

In that respect, I would say the answer is definitely yes, it's an expansion in every respect. And it's an expansion that probably is not attainable, which presents a lot of difficulties.

The Chairman: Monsieur Rhéaume.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: If I may answer, it is increasing the scope and it puts unnecessary constraints. I looked again at the text. We would have to interpret everything sort of as “to preserve and maintain the integrity”. And what does it mean in the context of ongoing activities that are already allowed? And we're saying that the permits will remain in force and so on. It would be quite a task.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill, do you have anything to add?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I just have to say that we're creating something here that has taken a lot of work, and it's a very admirable exercise, but it has its limits, I guess.

This park falls short of the dream of probably a lot of people. It falls short simply because we are not able to make a decision about what we are protecting here. We are trying to have a marriage of many kinds of interests.

I would just like to make the point that probably in the future we will find this conflict in terms of parks and in terms of the environment coming up more often. We have to make decisions about what the priorities are. Here in this bill we're trying to meet a lot of needs. That's what we have here. We have a document that has to tread very carefully around wording because we're not willing right now to put a total emphasis on preservation of species.

The Chairman: If I may comment, politics is the art of the possible. This has been the subject of huge negotiations between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada. I didn't want to bring this up because I felt that it was fair to have a debate on it and hear your point of view. But really, there's a fundamental concept. Once you have the scope of a bill and it's established, the scope of a bill cannot be enlarged. The scope has been tailored by the legislature to a certain extent, and also, if it adds additional expense, it's the same thing.

I didn't want to sort of reject your text at the beginning. That's why last week I asked if there were any amendments. If you had brought your amendments we could have looked at them and we could have come up with the necessary discussion points and so forth.

• 1625

I agree that perhaps it wasn't clear to you that amendments should have been advised and such, so I allowed the discussion. But I really think that I'd be going outside of my own mandate to allow a discussion to broaden the scope of the bill as established, now that Mr. Rhéaume confirms to me that it goes beyond the scope of the bill. Mr. Lee tells me that it would also bring additional expenses to bear.

If you agree, there are two options: I will rule the motions out of order for these reasons, or you agree to just let them fall by the wayside and you've made your point and then we carry on with the act the way it is.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like to ask for a point of clarification. First of all, we have been told that 17(a) and 17(b) cover what Ms. Lill would like to see. Secondly, we were told that this would greatly enlarge the scope of the bill. Can someone tell me exactly which words in Ms. Lill's proposal enlarge the scope of the bill?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: I will begin with the easier part, the second one. When we say that

[English]

in particular we're protecting and aiding the recovery of species and populations designated as at risk, well, “aiding the recovery of species”

[Translation]

could mean that the government must put in place programs to encourage the recovery of a species, for example. This is not simply letting nature take its course. "Aiding" means taking positive action to get to that point. This is complicated...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Right.

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: ... and onerous. The first part says

[English]

“preserving and maintaining the integrity of natural ecosystems”.

[Translation]

If we want to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem despite all the activities that are currently taking place, whether this be cruising or ferrying, this implies massive studies. What must be done to keep the ecosystem in its current state? "Maintaining" means maintaining. This is more than just conserving.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: So value the point. You know that at one point we have to move on. Certainly, from all we have heard, it does enlarge the scope, it does bring in additional expense, so I would rule that it would be outside of the scope of the bill we have to study today.

That might give you an out in case you want to produce an amendment in third reading. I really don't know if it would still be out of order in the House, but certainly it might give you a chance. The other option is to have a vote on it and defeat it, in which case you couldn't produce any amendments in the House. So this gives you a bit of a chance perhaps, but I don't think so. I think you would find it would still be the case there. You can at least debate in the House and bring up your points of view, whereas if we had a vote here and it got defeated, then it would stop you from doing this in the House.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: On another matter, Mr. Chairman, if I might.

The Chairman: No, let's deal with this.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay.

The Chairman: Do I take it you will withdraw this, or do I declare it out of order? One of the two.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Withdraw.

The Chairman: Okay. In that case we'll go back to clause 4.

Mr. O'Brien, I won't forget you.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: This deals with clause 4.

The Chairman: Are you speaking to clause 4?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: No.

The Chairman: So we won't forget, we'll go back to clause 4.

(Clause 4 agreed to)

The Chairman: We'll go back to the preamble now.

[Translation]

Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that I have been involved in this exercise. I would not want to hold up in any way the passage of the bill.

The Chairman: No problem. That is the reason we are here.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would not want to hold up the passage.

The Chairman: No, no.

Mr. Jacques Saada: There is a very slight translation problem that I would like to point out all the same because it seems to me to be important nonetheless.

In the French version of the first "whereas" clause, we speak of the "exceptional resources of a representative part of the Saguenay River," etc., which corresponds word for word to the matching preamble of the Quebec act.

Conversely, on the English side, we have "exceptional natural resources."

• 1630

In paragraph 17(c), we also allude to cultural resources. There is a distinction between "natural resources" and other resources. Would it be possible to correct the English version to make it consistent with the French one?

Mr. Jean Rhéaume: I just checked the Quebec version of the Act. It is exactly the same in French. It reads “ressources exceptionnelles” while in English, we have “exceptional natural resources.

The Chairman: Mr. Rhéaume, we are not professional legal translators. I think Mr. Saada is raising an important point. Perhaps you should discuss with the Quebec legislative drafters Rhéaume whether there is a need to correct either of the versions because "natural resources" and "ressources" could mean human resources or cultural resources. Perhaps the term "ressources naturelles exceptionelles" should be used.

I think we should adopt the preamble as it is now because it appears in both laws, but also make note of it at the Department of Justice so that we can make comparisons at the ministère de la justice du Québec to see if there is any need to change it. Are we all in agreement with that?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for the witnesses.

I don't see it in the legislation, and I wonder if there is any clause or was there any consideration given by the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada to have a revisitation clause. Would there be any value to that, to have after a given period of time...? I know that's done in some legislation. Obviously, the chair and I were part of a major CEPA review, which was built into that, a much bigger piece of legislation than this.

My question is whether there is a value for some kind of a revisitation clause, or was there any consideration given to that idea?

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Isn't that covered under subclause 9(2):

9.(2) The Minister shall review the management plan with the Quebec minister at least once every seven years, and shall cause any amendments to the plan to be laid with the plan before each House of Parliament.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes, I missed that.

Mr. John Godfrey: That covers it; that's the revisitation.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's the management plan for the legislation.

[English]

Mr. O'Brien, were you referring to the law?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes, a revisitation of the bill.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: He is answering not on the law but le plan directeur, which is quite different. Subclause 9(2)

[Translation]

deals with the management plan and not the legislation.

[English]

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: So your question is still there.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Madame Tremblay, I apppreciate your help. I appreciate the intervention of both colleagues.

So I guess the question still stands as to whether there is any value to revisiting the act—the acts, because there are two governments passing acts. Was there any conscious decision to not do that, or was there discussion of the concept?

Mr. Thomas Lee: My apology. There was no conscious discussion of whether or not this law should have a definite time period. But I think the dialogue that just took place is important to understand how we would expect this law to work.

The management plan is reviewed periodically, every seven years. That plan ultimately has to reach the agreement of both parties. If as a result of a management plan review there were changes required in law and both parties agreed that the management plan needed to be changed, then both parties would subsequently advance to their respective parliaments the necessary changes in law for discussion and rejection or approval.

That's the way I would look at the intent here.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Subclause 9(2) kick-starts the....

The Chairman: If there is no further discussion, I will call the preamble. Shall the preamble carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Is the title of the bill agreed to?

Members: Agreed.

• 1635

[English]

The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: The bill carries.

Merci beaucoup, Messrs. Lee, Tremblay, and Rhéaume.

We have some items of business. I first would like to deal with the schedule for the next two weeks and at the same time deal with Ms. Lill's letter of November 9, which was circulated to you.

[Translation]

We will be meeting with the Secretary of State, Mr. Mitchell, tomorrow.

[English]

Ms. Lill, you will be able to ask all these questions of Mr. Mitchell tomorrow from 9 to 11 a.m., Room 362, East Block.

[Translation]

Next week we will start work at 11:00 a.m.

[English]

From next week on, it's 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., except for Wednesday, when the meeting will take place at 3.30 p.m. We're going to have Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and then a briefing by Industry Canada on the November 27.

The week after, December 1 and 3,

[Translation]

the meeting will start at 11:00 a.m. You can see the subjects the experts and witnesses have proposed.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Chairman, on this first page you mentioned the trade minister.

The Chairman: Trade ministry.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Did you say the minister was coming?

The Chairman: No, I don't think he'll be coming; officials will.

• 1641

[Translation]

There is the letter from Ms. Lill

[English]

suggesting that we invite Ms. Maude Barlow and Mr. Keith Kelly regarding the MAI.

[Translation]

As you can see, we will be meeting on the 26th with representatives from the Department of International Trade who will certainly be questioned on this particular subject.

[English]

Do you want to have

[Translation]

the Department of International Trade during the first hour on the 26th and Ms. Maude Barlow and Mr. Keith Kelly during the second hour? Mr. Lemieux, the researcher, suggests we spend both hours on the Department of International Trade. The members of the committee will undoubtedly have enough questions to fill two hours.

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman,

[English]

I know that Ms. Barlow appeared on Monday this week in front of the subcommittee looking at the MAI. Do you know if Mr. Kelly, the executive director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, has appeared or is going to appear?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you. I needed to know that.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: It's not just Mr. Kelly alone. The whole cultural thing will be addressed tomorrow afternoon at the beginning. I would encourage all of you at that time to come to that part of the meeting.

If Mr. Bélanger is finished, I'll just add to this. These hearings I've been participating in have been going on for the last two weeks.

If we're going to have an all-out thing, it's just not enough to have Ms. Barlow and Mr. Kelly. That's why I'm a little concerned: it's just those two people. I think it is very, very important to have others, as well.

There is a subcommittee in place. Please come to those meetings and have an impact. I just don't think it's enough to have those two.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We are discussing the letter from Ms. Lill, but I know that Christine Lafrance, from our research department, addressed a letter to the clerk asking him to allow four, five or six people to come. I think it had been agreed that we would send the list of people we wanted to invite to the clerk and not to the committee.

If we are discussing Ms. Lill's requests, I would ask the clerk to also table the request from the Bloc Québécois, or else the steering committee will look after... Certain names keep coming up.

The Chairman: The clerk would like to clarify a point.

The Clerk of the Committee: Ms. Tremblay, the Bloc's suggestions have been accepted. On the 2nd of December, we will be meeting with Florian Sauvageau, who was recommended by the Bloc Québécois.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: There were Yvan Bernier and Keith Kelly.

The Clerk: There was a series of names and it was a matter of choosing from among those names someone who could be on a panel of experts on December 2nd. That was Mr. Lincoln's request.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: What we were above all concerned about was also inviting people from the MIA. The leading specialist is Yves Bernier.

The Clerk: There were a number of names suggested, including that of Mr. Florian Sauvageau.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: But you already had him on your list. Florian Sauvageau was on your own list from the beginning.

The Chairman: Could I make a suggestion? Perhaps we could agree on some of the names, like Mr. Bernier, Ms. Barlow and Mr. Kelly, and include them on the panel and select another date. There are other dates available. We are not limited to that one. Could we make a proposal like that?

• 1645

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Just a small point. I find it unfortunate that we had a refusal from the other committee, which does not want to meet with us. Tomorrow Mr. Bernier will be there. The leading authority on MIA will be there tomorrow afternoon. We have some extremely important questions to ask him, but we cannot do so because they do not want us to participate in their work. This results in a duplication.

[English]

The Chairman: Just one second.

[Translation]

Mr. Speller, the chairman of the committee, has told us that he will see Mr. Bernier tomorrow and that the members of our committee will be welcome at theirs. He says he will let them speak and allow them to participate. Therefore you can join them tomorrow.

Mr. John Godfrey: What time is it at?

The Chairman: At 3:30 p.m.

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: If I may add, if the committee has questions that they would also like me to put to those witnesses at that time, I'd be happy to do so.

The Chairman: That's one way, but they can also join in. Mr. Speller said that he will welcome any members who want to come.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm very happy that we have a member from Heritage on that committee, but because culture is such a very crucial part of this MAI—

The Chairman: Absolutely.

Ms. Wendy Lill: —process, I think we should all be not just sort of sitting in on one small portion of the deliberation, I think we should know it backward and forward. I think we have to really understand this and its implications.

We keep hearing that culture is potentially the deal-breaker here. Well, I have to know so much more about it. I'm just craving to hear all these things, so let's have more people in here. Let's get some information going for us. I welcome other suggestions from people. I just know that these two people have some very interesting insights, and we must be able to find more.

The Chairman: Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As a new member on this committee, is it possible for somebody to give us backgrounds on these people who are coming as witnesses out here? We don't seem to have any backgrounds. We have no objection, I just want some information to see what these witnesses are coming for and what their background is so we can prepare for them.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: They're well-known experts in the world. I'm surprised they're not known in the west.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: You may be surprised, but that's fine, Ms. Tremblay. I think that was not an appropriate comment that you made. My comment was for us to make an informed decision. If we don't know, then it's better for us to get the background. I asked a simple little question. I didn't ask for a ridiculous comment.

The Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Obhrai, the CVs will be sent to you right away by the clerk. If you have any suggestions at all to add to the list, by all means do so. Send them to the clerk. We're open to any suggestions.

Mr. Saada, then Mr. Godfrey.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Given the importance of the cultural factor in the MIA, even if I acknowledge that Ms. Tremblay has a valid point concerning duplication, I would very much like the opportunity to listen to them at this table. We could ask these people some questions. I believe you are saying that if we are welcomed at another committee, and I am pleased that we are, the question period will be decreased. Consequently, we will have less time to obtain responses to questions that are of interest to us. If we could accommodate Ms. Lill, Ms. Tremblay and ourselves simultaneously by having a second round of hearings, I would like that very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: The first point is thank I think there's a slight confusion about witnesses and purposes. The witnesses that were submitted to the clerk were in the context of our overall study of cultural policy in which globalization was to be one of the elements. A sub-element of that would certainly be the MAI, but it's far from being the only one, because we want to look at the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, and a whole bunch of other things.

I think there is a slight discontinuity in our discussion here. I think it's good that we will have the chance to put the MAI in a larger context when we have that discussion.

• 1650

Secondly, of course it's always possible for people who are specifically concerned by the MAI and its cultural provisions to sit down at any meeting of any subcommittee and even have the chance, as is being offered tomorrow, to participate in questions if there's time. The people who have a particular interest in that should be encouraged to do so.

That having been said, I tend to support the point of the member who's actually sitting on the committee that there's always a danger if you just cherry-pick two people and you pick only one subject. There are all the other subjects that have been raised—the environment, the social component and so on—so you may not be getting the full context and may be going after just one thing. What I'm saying is that I think we need either more or less. That is to say, people who really care about it should try to sit in on that subcommittee.

We should, at least in the first instance, try to locate the MAI discussion in the larger discussion of globalization when we have the folks in and, if need be, then pursue it further. But we should take into account what this other committee is doing so we won't be falling over each other.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I would very much encourage you to come tomorrow, because our report is due in the first week of December. So if you want to have an impact, please do so.

Again, if we are going to have a special committee hearing on just the MAI, then we must have a negotiator at the table and we must have senior officials or the minister at the table to get all sides. I say this because I don't see all sides. There we can get the commitment. So it's very important that those people come.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: In terms of our work, we have to define Canadian cultural policy in the context of globalization. It is important that we put forward concepts or fill the void behind the acronyms. What is there in FTA to protect culture? What is there in NAFTA to protect culture? What is there in the WTO to protect culture? What will be put in MIA to protect culture? What is the difference between these four? What is in them? We were assured that NAFTA would protect us when we voted the 80 percent law for magazines. The Americans being more crafty than we thought they were did not go after us in terms of the FTA because they would have lost. They went after us at the WTO and they won. Are we protected therefore or not? What is protected?

We know their concept of culture very well. For them, culture means cars and consumer goods. We know they do not have the same concept as we do. Therefore we will have to draft things in such a way as to truly protect what we want to protect. It seems to me to be extremely important that we know what lies behind the acronyms that we bandy about right and left. I myself do not know exactly what there is in them to protect us. We say that we are protected, but we let ourselves be caught by the Americans when it comes to magazines and now we are in the process of being caught by Polygram in Holland for film distribution. Are we protected or not? I would really like to know.

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, you have voiced your concern very eloquently. The last point you raised will be dealt with during our next four meetings.

I would suggest that, during the week of the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th, we let the researchers make suggestions to us and you contribute your ideas and that we get back to you later.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Something has to be presented to us.

The Chairman: Yes, agreed.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: We need to see the transparencies.

The Chairman: Yes, yes.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: A presentation, a real presentation.

[English]

Ms. Wendy Lill: I agree with Mr. Saada in that it's one thing to drag ourselves to a committee meeting that we've had nothing to do with up until now, simply to hear one or two speakers. We would have, in fact, very little input at that point. It would be irresponsible for us even to think that we know what's going on, because we don't. We would hear a tiny piece.

That's not satisfactory to me. I feel that I want to have people come into our committee and speak to us and fill our minds with the different elements. I'd be very happy to have three, four, five or six people. It's the central issue facing us.

The Chairman: Mrs. Lill, the point is well taken. I think we're all agreed.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Okay.

• 1655

The Chairman: What we're going to do.... The researchers have the list now. We have some dates after December 8, and we'll make a suggestion to you at the next meeting.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: On the 9th and 11th.

The Chairman: Agreed.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: If they are ready, if we can get people to attend.

[English]

The Chairman: Could we just leave it on this basis and move on? We have a motion that Mr. Abbott presented according to the rules, and it has to be dealt with. You have it before you. Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, so that we have a discussion specifically on the motion, I'd like to read into the record the motion, which calls upon the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to study the issue of the National Capital Commission policy on holding NCC board meetings behind closed doors; and further, to invite the chairman of the National Capital Commission, Marcel Beaudry, to appear before the committee; and further, to recommend that all future National Capital Commission board meetings be open to the public.

Mr. Chairman, I note two things: number one, the final point—and I appreciated the recommendation yesterday, where it reads “to further recommend”...in other words, recognizing the limitations, whatever they may be, of this committee. We are not putting ourselves into a position here, by passing this motion, of usurping any authority. We are simply making a recommendation.

Secondly, I believe that this committee, as with all committees of the House, is master of its own destiny and can determine what it wishes to study and the directions it wishes to go in. I think that on both those points the motion is in order.

I'd like to point out that tomorrow there is going to be a final decision made by the National Capital Commission with respect to the Champlain Bridge. This is a small point of catalyst. It brings the focus at this particular time to the fact that we have what is fundamentally a board that is an appointed board as opposed to an elected board, but more specifically to this motion, a board that constantly has its deliberations in camera.

The issue of the Champlain Bridge I will not make any judgment call on, nor should I, because I come from British Columbia. I come from the Rocky Mountains. I think that it's for the people of the Ottawa and the Outaouais area to determine what the best course of action should be with respect to the bridge.

What we're talking about here, Mr. Chairman, specifically is the process. The process, in my judgment, is wrong. There was a judgment reported in August of this year by Judge Francis Muldoon with respect to the Champlain Bridge. In his judgment, where the plaintiffs were saying that the National Capital Commission did not have the jurisdiction, etc., etc., the judge basically describes the committee coalition—those are the plaintiffs—that brought the legal action as “a manifestation and expression of basic democracy”. He continues:

Unfortunately, the applicants do not have a democratically directly elected level of government whom they could hold responsible electorally for the actions which so displease them.

With respect to the chairman, it is noted that some members of the public think that Mr. Beaudry, who owns land a few kilometres from the Champlain Bridge, does have a conflict of interest. If the NCC were like a municipal council, these voters could act on their views, but—and this is very important—Mr. Beaudry, the judge notes, properly acted to minimize his conflict. His land interests are administered by his wife, and he voluntarily opted out of voting on the bridge issue. To quote the judge, “Mr. Beaudry did the best thing he could, short of resigning, in an unfortunate situation”.

This motion has nothing to do with Mr. Beaudry's land ownership, nor does it cast any aspersions whatsoever in that direction. However, we have a situation in the National Capital Region where we have effectively three levels of government. There are the regional levels of government on both sides of the Ottawa River—that's one. Those are elected bodies who hold their meetings in public. Secondly, we have the municipal levels. Again, those are elected representatives who are democratically accountable to the people in their constituency, and their meetings are held in public.

• 1700

Mr. Chairman, we have a very unusual situation, certainly unique in Canada, and of course this is the nation's capital. We have a third level of government that can put traffic into streets where people don't necessarily want it. We have a level of government that makes decisions that impact on people's lives in very specific ways in this constituency and yet their meetings are all behind closed doors.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect to the people who work at the National Capital Commission.... I wonder if the first vote that occurred on the Champlain Bridge could have been a vote that occurred apparently on the wrong issue. In other words, the commissioners ended up voting in favour of something they didn't realize they were voting for and in fact had to go back and do the process all over again. It was a rather embarrassing situation. I wonder if that would have occurred if the meetings were regularly held in public.

This is the value of boards or commissions, whatever the regulatory bodies are. When the meetings are held in public and are reported on there is due diligence at a significantly higher level, I submit, than when the meetings are held behind closed doors. There are the questions on the part of the people in this area as to what kind of advice the commissioners receive. We simply don't know.

So I don't want to cast aspersions. I simply ask the question. We don't know what kind of advice they receive.

Remember that the commissioners are appointed by the heritage minister. The commissioners come from all over Canada, as many of the people in this room do. For the same reason that I would not want to pass judgment on whether there should be a widening of the Champlain Bridge or acceptance of the display from the people of Holland, or whatever the issues are, I wouldn't want to comment on those without being briefed. But when the public is kept out of these meetings, when the meetings are held in camera, we don't know what those briefings are; we don't know what the quality of the recommendations are to these people who are appointed to this position.

It has been disappointing to me—and I'm going to try to say this in as non-partisan a way as I can—that successive Liberal and Conservative members from the Ottawa area, for whatever reason, have failed to open the doors of the National Capital Commission. It's been kind of like the silence of the Liberals, where you have people who have not responded.

When I became aware of this issue, having been appointed the heritage critic in the last Parliament by my leader, I became involved. I moved a motion in the House of Commons, which of course went into the lottery bin. Marlene Catterall then, at the very end of Parliament, moved a private member's bill that would have accomplished the same thing. But we all know what happens to private members' motions and bills.

John Manley, who is a minister, could have done this.

Mr. Chairman, all of these things could have been corrected.

I find it some strange that a person has to come from the Rocky Mountains to take a look at this situation and realize that the most fundamental level of democracy, a level that is impacting on the lives of the people of the Ottawa and Outaouais area, has never been addressed by any of the sitting members of Parliament.

So it's with this in mind that I have moved this motion that we study the issue, that we invite Mr. Beaudry to appear before the committee to explain to us what the limitations are, recognizing that some of the deliberations of the National Capital Commission must be held behind closed doors—we respect that—but that those deliberations behind closed doors clearly should be the exception rather than the rule, and further that we recommend that all future NCC board meetings be open to the public.

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott's motion is receivable.

Mr. Godfrey.

• 1705

Mr. John Godfrey: The difficulty is that the National Capital Commission is not a municipal council; it's a crown corporation, a representative of all Canadians to administer the national capital of this country in co-operation with municipal authorities.

What they've tried to do, as I understand it, is to have open consultation processes when local issues are involved. They have open meetings every January in both Ottawa and Hull. There are local representatives from both municipal councils, from Hull and Ottawa, who are part of the National Capital Commission under the act.

This issue was raised before the committee in 1995 and Mr. Beaudry appeared before it to explain why he couldn't do it. The subsequent legal opinion obtained by the National Capital Commission was that were that decision to be made it would involve opening up the act to explain the circumstances for holding these open meetings.

So I suppose the short answer is that there seem to be a number of procedures in place to take into account local sensitivities, but this is not a municipal council. It's a different kind of creature.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I want to make a few remarks in response to this motion and its presentation.

When trying to establish public policy, I would hope one would go at it from certain principles. One of those that I espouse is that as a rule we should tend towards more openness as opposed to less, as opposed to more secrecy. In that sense I don't have much difficulty with the first and second paragraphs of the motion put forward by Mr. Abbott. But there are other principles.

There is one, for instance, that is that when setting public policy one should try as much as possible to avoid reaching a conclusion before a study is done. I will refer to Mr. Abbott's motion here, where in paragraph one he suggests that we study the issue, but in paragraph three he arrives at the conclusion, which I'll come back to in a moment. So already this motion becomes less palatable.

The third such principle is that we should tend towards general principles, general application as opposed to specific applications. So if we as a committee were to look at opening up the board meetings of an agency of the Crown, we should also consider what we should do with the National Arts Centre, which is a situation similar to the NCC, made up of people from all over the country but essentially in Ottawa with 95% of its client base in Ottawa. We should consider what to do with the gallery, with the museums. That's not the case here.

He is focused on one particular issue, and I think that's where we'll see the inherent hypocrisy of the motion, because the purpose of this motion is not to advance the cause of public policy, it is to embarrass.

I'll read Mr. Abbott's words from this morning in a radio interview. He said: “Well, I think that any time you have politicians who aren't doing their job, if embarrassment will cause them to do it, then, fine, let's embarrass them.” It's fairly straightforward.

Mr. Abbott, with all due respect, the people here, the members of Parliament in this area, have been elected by these people. If in your opinion they're not doing their job, surely to God that opinion is not shared by the people who elected and re-elected them. Even more so in the case of the Champlain Bridge: it was a very pointed issue in one or two of the local races, and yet Liberal members have been returned.

If you wish to substitute your judgment from the Rocky Mountains for the judgment of the electors of the people here in the nation's capital, that's your choice, but I would argue with you and suggest to you that you're wrong.

This notion that we have three levels of government is correct, but he doesn't understand which three. You have a local level of government made up of upper and lower tiers covered by the Municipal Act of Ontario, and you have a provincial level of government and a federal level of government. The provincial and the federal levels of government all have elected representatives.

The National Capital Commission reports to the House of Commons through the minister. We in this committee have authority. All of that is public. It is accountable. So to say that they operate in secrecy is nonsense. They do not operate in secrecy.

The other thing too.... Well, I'll leave that one alone. I've said enough on that.

• 1710

To conclude, Mr. Chair, it's a rather awkward situation that the member wishes to use to embarrass. I have said that and I will maintain that, and I would hope that the members of this committee will see through that and defeat this. On the whole, it is not an acceptable motion because it is hypocritical in its nature, and its purpose is not to advance public policy but to cause embarrassment. In my opinion, he should be reprimanded by our defeat of this motion.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: In a way, we should find a compromise between the two positions, that of Mr. Mauril Bélanger and that of Mr. Jim Abbott. I think it is important for the National Capital Commission to have a certain transparency. It is not really very transparent.

I learned by chance yesterday evening that the Kuwait embassy issue was settled and that it will be built on the parking lot right beside the Chateau Laurier. The agreement was signed by the ambassador and Mr. Beaudry last week. The lot cost a million and a half dollars, paid in cash by Kuwait. I got the information from the Kuwaiti ambassador, who is very pleased to be located right beside the American embassy, the Chateau Laurier and the parking lot.

We will end up having congestion in the downtown core. It seems to me that there was a lot of debate over this issue. It may have been covered in the anglophone newspapers, but it did not appear at all in the francophone newspapers I read. I never read that the issue of the Kuwaiti embassy was settled. The deal was signed last week.

I think it is in our interest to meet with Mr. Beaudry. I think it is in our interest to have a discussion with him, but first I would like to have access to some research on Crown corporations. Certainly, we cannot ask how the CBC, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada or the National Capital Commission work. That is why I say that we have to find a compromise between these two positions, and it seems to me to be important for us to have information about it.

Moreover, it seems to me extremely important that the National Capital Commission become more transparent. It is not quite like the CBC, Telefilm, etc. They manage what really belongs to everyone. I'm not saying this because I particularly want to see Mr. Beaudry. Those who were there during the previous legislature know that when Mr. Beaudry arrived I fled to Hull because I was so exasperated by these situations.

It is true that we have to discuss this. If it is managed by all of Canada, the National Capital Commission must occupy all of its territory, perhaps invest differently and make different decisions, or explain to us that in certain cases it can do so and in other cases it cannot. We need to have more information about it. We have to have information first and then meet with Mr. Beaudry. That seems to me to be imperative.

[English]

The Chairman: If I may give some information to the members,

[Translation]

I believe that what you have contributed, Ms. Tremblay, is very important.

I have talked to the Minister because I also wanted to know what the department's position was concerning these Crown corporations. She told me the department was currently undertaking an in-depth study. She gave the department a directive to study all these corporations to see how they could be made more open and how we could study something that could lead to a bill or a regulation to pin these companies down and open their meetings to the public. Some meetings have to take place in camera, such as those relating to financial plans, etc. but most of the meetings should be opened.

• 1715

According to the Minister, this study has been initiated. She was telling me

[English]

that they can't just look at any one institution by itself. They can't just look at the National Capital Commission. She told me that they are at arm's length from the National Capital Commission, but that she is doing a study to see how they could have some sort of a general guideline or rule to ensure that the CBC, the National Arts Council or whatever has so many open meetings and that when they have to meet in camera, they have to justify it, just like us.

That is going on now, and she tells me that this work is being carried on by her ministry now at a sort of diligent pace. I just thought I would let you know that.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I will absolutely acknowledge it, clearly. I said it on the radio and I will say it again on record. If it takes a motion by this committee to embarrass the Liberal members in the Ottawa area into doing something, then so be it. If they won't move of their own accord, maybe they will move under the pressure of some public embarrassment. And if I create it, that's just fine. I have no difficulty with that whatsoever.

With respect to the argument that this is a specific versus the general and bringing up the National Arts Centre and so on and so forth, the National Arts Centre does not have the same impact on the lives of the people in the Ottawa-Outaouais area that the National Capital Commission does.

If Mrs. Tremblay's information is correct about the Kuwait signing and so on and so forth, this is something that.... This kind of agreement would simply not happen if it were done in a proper and open manner. We have a problem in Ottawa that right at this moment is impacting the lives of a million people in this area.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The policies...

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: I respect—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Negotiations of rent properties—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I respect the fact that our chairman has reported in good faith. I also respect the fact that the information he has received from the minister has also been presented in good faith, that this study is now ongoing. But I also note that as a result of coming here I have been involved in politics in the Ottawa area now for four years, and in those four years we now have this announcement that this study is under way.

Mr. Chairman, there are people in this area who are very much chafing at the bit about the fact that there is this closed-door authority making decisions that are impacting their lives. My objective is to open that door, and if it ends up embarrassing some Liberals because they're not doing their jobs, then so be it.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I was just going to call for the vote on the motion.

The Chairman: The question has been called.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: I'd just like to say that if Mr. Abbott is not worried about embarrassing the government, he might be worried about being embarrassed by what Stornoway will show.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I would be happy to respond to that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Jim Abbott: There is a letter—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Jim Abbott: There is a very interesting happenstance in the news today.

The Chairman: Order.

A voice: This is partisan politics.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick has called for the question.

Mr. Abbott, just so that we are not stuck with procedure, I will allow you a last...otherwise we'll vote on the question. Okay?

Mr. Jim Abbott: I would appreciate it. Thank you.

With respect to that, there is the old adage in news coverage: never allow the facts to destroy a perfectly good story.

The National Capital Commission has issued a letter that I will be very happy to circulate to all of the members of this committee—and I will—that clearly and specifically stipulates that the costs at Stornoway have all been completely earmarked as to where the costs are, and that in fact the costs the Conservative member is reporting and which have been in the public domain have been blown completely out of proportion. And this is the National Capital Commission reporting this.

• 1720

The Chairman: Order, order, order.

I think we're just going to move on, if members agree. We have a motion before us. We have to move on. It's 5.20.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Could we have a recorded vote, please?

The Chairman: Yes, sure. We'll have a recorded vote on Mr. Abbott's motion. The wording is before you. There has been discussion.

The clerk will call the vote, please.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 4)

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in last week's Globe and Mail for Tuesday or Wednesday, mention was made of a major change in the organization of the department of Heritage Canada, which would lead to the displacement of certain deputy ministers. Could the committee be officially informed of these changes? Could we have the new organization chart of the department?

The Chairman: Certainly, Ms. Tremblay, I will get one and send it to all the committee members.

[English]

The meeting is adjourned.