HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 31, 2001

• 0910

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): I declare open, with apologies for the delay, the meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage,

[Translation]

which is meeting today to study Bill C-10,

[English]

a bill respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, which has been read a second time in the House of Commons and referred to our committee.

We have our first set of witnesses today: from the World Wildlife Fund, Mr. Josh Laughren, senior manager; from the Fisheries Council of Canada, Mr. Ronald Bulmer, president, and Mr. Patrick McGuinness, vice-president—I understand Mr. Bulmer won't be with us; from the Canadian Nature Federation, Christie Spence, co-manager of the wildlife campaign; and from Memorial University of Newfoundland, Dr. John Lien, whale research group.

This is in the format of a round table. This is why the speakers are not grouped according to sector, but it is a mixture of different witnesses to add to the understanding of people, because you will have different viewpoints on some areas.

We now have ten members of the committee, so if you'll just bear with us for three minutes, there's an item that has to be cleared up for the clerk.

I've received a letter from Mr. Andy Burton, MP for Skeena, and I will read it to the members:

Dear Mr. Lincoln,

I'm very concerned with the apparent lack of consultation on Bill C-10 by the Standing Committee. As you may know, this bill has the potential to seriously affect economic development in my riding of Skeena, British Columbia. Its far-reaching mandate is also of much concern to many B.C. coastal and inland communities which rely on the ocean's natural resources for economic survival.

My specific concern relates to the lack of consultation by affected communities as this bill is ushered through committee stage and back to the House of Commons for Report Stage and Third Reading. I have taken the liberty to send a copy of Bill C-10 to many coastal communities, chambers of commerce, aboriginal communities, special interest groups and individual stakeholders in my riding for input. I understand that you and your committee have already received many submissions to that effect. I believe that I can accurately summarize their concerns by saying that the committee must travel to coastal British Columbia and hear from affected communities directly. I believe the committee has not fully contemplated this course of action and that the democratic benefits would far outweigh the initial financial costs.

Therefore, I respectfully request that, as Committee Chair, you extend the current consultation period to include time to hear witnesses from affected coastal communities. I also urge you to begin making arrangements for the Committee's travel to coastal B.C. either this Summer or early this Fall. Bill C-10 is a major piece of legislation and proper wide ranging consultation with affected areas of Canada is, in my opinion, not too little to ask before its passage in the House of Commons.

I respectfully request that you treat this as an urgent matter and reply to me in Ottawa in writing immediately.

I'm bringing this to the committee in a public meeting because I feel it's a serious allegation to say there's an apparent lack of consultation on Bill C-10 by the standing committee. I take exception to this.

• 0915

On March 12 we clearly wrote to members and researchers of the committee. The clerk wrote to them and said:

Please find below a list of suggested witnesses for the committee's hearings on Bill C-10.

Members may submit further suggestions to the Clerk of the Committee for distribution to all Members.

In regard to the coastal community, there was only one listed, the Lake Superior Regional Committee chair, David Trembley. The clerk made it clear that there was lots of room for other communities to be invited if they would signify accordingly. In fact, she spoke to Mr. Burton himself.

In this meeting I brought up the fact at least once, and the record will show it, that because we had received no further requests, we had to close up the list. I recall this very clearly.

So to say today that there's no apparent consultation with the committee, I take exception to this, and I will write to Mr. Burton accordingly.

Regarding the request to visit the coastal communities in B.C, if we start visiting the coastal communities in B.C., then obviously, in fairness, we'll have to visit the coastal communities that ask for a visit in the north, in the east, and so on. It would be completely impractical; it would be a huge cost. We're prepared to ask them to come here. The committee, as usual, provides expenses for those who need to travel. The budget is still open to that.

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): It's against the Canadian Alliance policy to travel.

The Chair: Well, yes.

So I don't know. I think you were at the meetings when we said the list is open and asked you for any further suggestions. We wrote. We didn't hear anything.

For Mr. Burton at this very late stage to imply there's a lack of consultation and we're trying to rush this through, and to write on May 30, I consider this totally unfair. I don't think it's the time to do it, and I will reply to him.

If he had any reservations about our list, surely between March 12 and May 30 is ample time to make representations to us. The clerk has spoken to him already. I don't know how to qualify it, but I don't think it's very fair.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): We were looking to find the appropriate people to be witnesses, and it was only a matter of weeks ago that we were able to find the people who were willing to be witnesses.

Bill C-10 was completely off the long-term legislative calendar, so we weren't sure if the people were going to be required now or in the fall. It looked for some time that this would not be done until September. The fact that the opposition is unable to call any witnesses will be pushed home to a loud degree. It's like having a trial without one side being able to offer any witnesses. It's totally one-sided.

The Chair: Ms. Gallant, I take very strong exception to this, because the formula has always been the same in the House of Commons. For those of us who have sat on the committee, I'm very open to any witnesses who want to come here. When you get the letter on March 12, and between March 12 and May 30 you can't find....

Even if the bill was called for June, how is it that the other witnesses were able to signify to us that they were available? The Fisheries Council? The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance? Why is it that the Lake Superior Regional Committee was prepared to send a brief and tell us they wanted to appear? What does that have to do with it, whether the bill comes in June or not?

When we ask for witnesses, surely if the official opposition is interested in witnesses appearing, they contact people anyway. Then they tell us they might be coming. When the bill is there the clerk gets in touch with them and signifies that their costs will be borne by the committee. I don't see anything to reproach ourselves for. We have given you ample notice. If you're not able to contact the witnesses in time or get them to come here, and blame us for your lack of diligence in doing so, that's completely unacceptable.

• 0920

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Our witnesses run businesses and could only come at certain times. We had to find out exactly when this was going to be, so they could make the proper arrangements.

The Chair: Surely, all you had to do was at least give us a list of those who wanted to come. The clerk would have been in touch with them to make arrangements. How did the other people make arrangements?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: We made a request of the ministry people who were here, to provide us with the names of people who were on the advisory committee on the coast. We wanted to bring in some of the people from Newfoundland, find out what their concerns were, and why that one did not go forward. We thought that was very pertinent to this whole bill.

The Chair: So why didn't you make a request for the Newfoundland people to be here?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: We made the request of the ministry to find out who the people were, and to date they still have not provided us with that information.

The Chair: I find that very strange. If you wanted the Newfoundland people to come, you should have contacted them, or read the Hansard to find out the names of the people to get in touch with them.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: It was a community committee. It wasn't in Hansard. It was their hearings on the coast.

The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Just as a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, we do have somebody here today from Newfoundland from Memorial University. But I also contacted the group you would think would represent all concerns, in relation to the coast and the fishery—the FFAW. I contacted them directly, and then I forwarded them a copy of the bill and all the pertinent information.

I haven't had any response, and I don't think the clerk has. I gave them timeframes and said I would expedite any request to come here. We haven't heard from them. So the opportunity was given to anybody related to this there. Don't blame Newfoundland if there's a problem; they've had the opportunity.

The Chair: I intend to write to Mr. Burton, but I want to put it on the record that I don't accept the fact that we are trying to hide anything; that we're trying to make sure that people don't come here; or that we're trying not to hear communities.

To suggest that we should travel to coastal British Columbia to hear communities, one by one, and not do so in the east or the north would be just completely unwarranted. To think we could do this within the strictures committees are on to obtain travel budgets, and so forth, in short order to go to coastal British Columbia—as Mr. Burton who has been here some time knows—would be just totally unwarranted.

The affected communities had ample time, between March and May 30, to signify to us an interest, at least, in appearing. We didn't even hear a peep from your party, as to who that was and whether they had the slightest interest in appearing. Surely if you had told us what communities wanted to be heard, the clerk would have been in touch with them, and would have made sure we adjusted our time to hear them.

We have never tried not to hear people who wanted to be heard.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: It might be a compromise to just hold off until we can get the people from British Columbia to come to committee, rather than travelling there and visiting all the coastal communities.

The Chair: Mrs. Gallant, I'm going to check the Hansard. I think you and Mr. Abbott were there when we closed the list. We said the list was going to be closed because we had to invite people. We had to make travel arrangements for them to fly in. I didn't hear a peep from any of the people in your party then. You could have asked us to hold the list open, and we would have done so.

Sooner or later we will have to make travel arrangements. If tomorrow we can get these people to come at the last minute, you realize the cost will be two or three times as much.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Why don't we wait until the fall then, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, we'll hold a piece of legislation until the fall, just because you and Mr. Burton haven't done your homework. It's just too bad.

I don't think that is the job of this committee. Our job now is to hear the people who have chosen to take the trouble to let us know they want to be heard, which is their prerogative. These communities could have written to us a million times between March and now, when we solicited requests.

They knew that Bill C-10 was coming up. We aren't going to hold up legislation for three months, just because you or Mr. Burton feel we haven't done our homework. I think it's the other way; I think you haven't done your homework. I'm sorry.

I'm not going to hold up the bill just because of that. If the communities feel slighted, they can appeal to the Speaker. I think we've done our job, and the record will show that very clearly. We invited witnesses. I think the record will show that when we said the list was closed, you didn't make one little observation to the contrary. Now, at the very last minute, you want to hold up the bill. I don't think that's right.

• 0925

In the meantime, I don't know how we can bring these communities here now, at the very last minute and at high cost. It's very unfortunate.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis Mills: What about the member coming and representing his community? Surely to goodness, as the member of Parliament for the community, he would understand and know all their concerns and their thoughts. There's nothing stopping a member of Parliament, on any given day, from coming to a committee and putting his or her thoughts on the record. He could actually come today. Then at least he would feel the message was on the record. There are lots of people in our ridings we can't bring here, but it's our job to speak on their behalf. What about that?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: He would need to be afforded the same notice that other witnesses are given.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I'm talking about the member of Parliament.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Right, the member of Parliament would need notice if he were going to be a witness.

Mr. Dennis Mills: No, we would just get him on the phone and tell him to come today. He would know about this like the back of his hand. It's not some new file for him.

The Chair: Mr. Wilfert is next, and then we'll have to close.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I read the member's letter this morning when I came in, and quite frankly was quite surprised, given the timeframe, as you very clearly put forward. I am concerned that we would be setting a precedent if we reopened the list every time someone did not do due diligence.

I don't think the issue is whether this bill needs to be put through today, tomorrow, a month from now, or five months from now. We have procedures through the House that we're supposed to adhere to. Everyone has had the same opportunity. If we opened it up in this case, would we not be opening ourselves up for criticism that others would then say, maybe at the last minute—now obviously way after the last minute—they would like to come forward? Where would it end?

My understanding is that once we have given the notice of the cut-off date, to come in now at the end of May is not appropriate. I don't think anyone is trying to stifle debate or having appropriate witnesses, but we are all aware, as we are at every committee, of what the timeframes are. I think, as a courtesy to the committee members and the clerk who has to contact these people, it is inappropriate now to come forward and say this member wants to bring witnesses forward, or go to coastal British Columbia or wherever. I think we would be setting a bad precedent.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will put into writing what you have indicated today. I will certainly support your position, and if it's challenged, then we'll go from there.

The Chair: By the way, Bill C-10 was in front of the House for several days. There was a motion by your party to hoist it, so people knew very well what the timing of this thing was. That was several weeks ago, when the hoist motion came from one of your members. It was debated, so it wasn't as if this thing came from out of the blue.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: We did not receive the information requested of the ministry on the people who were involved in the Bonavista Bay Advisory Committee. We want to know what their concerns are, because they might be pertinent to this legislation.

The Chair: Yes, but that has nothing to do with inviting them. I think Mr. Hearn—

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: But if we don't know who they are, how can we invite them, sir?

The Chair: Mr. Hearn knows who they are and he did invite them. He just pointed that out, and they chose not to come. Obviously, their coastal community project is off the map. It's not taking place, so maybe that signifies their lack of interest.

Mr. Burton doesn't refer to Newfoundland communities; he refers to B.C. coastal communities. That has nothing to do with Newfoundland.

So I think we'll close it up now. I intend to write to Mr. Burton to take strong exception to his remarks. I don't take them nicely. I think this is just political grandstanding, when all the records will show that he had ample time to call any witnesses he wished to.

Mr. Mills?

• 0930

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, the second point of notice that I wanted to put on the floor before we go to witnesses is that next week at the committee for a few minutes we should discuss the most significant, largest cultural heritage event in the history of our country, the World Youth Days. I'd like to make sure all members of the committee are brought up to speed on it.

The Chair: Are you going to give notice of a resolution?

Mr. Dennis Mills: Yes. I'm giving notice of it right now.

The Chair: Can you give us a sense of it, because we don't have anything in writing? Will you send it to members?

Mr. Dennis Mills: Yes. I'll have it to members before noon today.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

All right. Mr. Laughren, will you start. Please excuse the long delay.

Mr. Josh Laughren (Senior Manager, World Wildlife Fund): Thank you very much for the chance to appear here today. My name is Josh Laughren and I'm the director of World Wildlife Fund Canada's marine program, and I also sit on the World Wildlife Fund International marine advisory group.

I hope most of you are at least familiar with the name WWF.

A voice: Which WWF?

Mr. Josh Laughren: Which WWF, of course. They protect entirely different animals.

Mr. Dennis Mills: We want one of your calendars.

Mr. Josh Laughren: We were established here in Canada in 1967, and we're one of the largest and, I think, most successful conservation organizations in Canada. We work in Canada and abroad, and we have the support of over 50,000 Canadians. We're part of a global organization, obviously, with about five million regular members and supporters, with a network of 27 national organizations, program offices in a further 22 countries, and more associate organizations. World Wildlife Fund International, of which we are part, is the world's largest independent conservation organization.

The marine program we have is part of the suite of work we've taken on, and the goal of the marine program is healthy marine ecosystems. We're translating that through the goal of a representative system of protected areas in Canada by the year 2010. As some of you may notice, that's a similar goal to our endangered spaces program, which we ran from 1989 to the year 2000. It was a great success, I think, and helped double the extent of terrestrial protected areas in Canada during that time. We've worked on marine for many years through Arctic toxic work, work on the right whales, bowhead whales up in the Arctic, we co-drafted with Fisheries and Oceans the beluga recovery plan for the St. Lawrence, and we are concerned with endangered species and habitat protection.

So we're no strangers to marine work, but in the year 2000 we revitalized it and made it a major focus of the organization. We've committed ourselves to it for the next ten years, and this is a program that is actually driven by our regional work. We have offices now in Prince Rupert, as a matter of fact. Michele Patterson is our regional director in Prince Rupert, and he has lived in Prince Rupert on the north coast for many years. We have an office in Halifax run by Dr. Bob Rangeley, a marine scientist who actually used to work for Fisheries and Oceans, including consultancy in Haida Gwaii on the Queen Charlotte Islands and Lake Superior.

So this is very much a program that's driven by the regions. As a matter of fact, we have an advisory council on both the east and the west coasts. On the west coast it's chaired by the Honourable John Fraser. On the east coast it's chaired by Donald Sobey, with representatives from the business community, the fishing industry, the energy industry, who sit on the council to help us find our way, not so much with what we do, but with how we do business, making sure we stay on track. That's all I want to say about WWF, although I'm certainly open to questions.

We're here supporting Bill C-10. We think it's just a great start. Everything I read in the bill and every conversation I've had with Parks Canada I think speaks to an honest attempt on the part of Parks Canada to balance their commitment to conservation with an understanding of the complexities of working in the marine environment and with the needs of resource users and growth in coastal communities. I think this is an intelligent way to move the Parks Canada mandate onto the water, which isn't just laying on the national parks approach, but is trying to really take into account the different biological and social complexities of the oceans.

• 0935

We support the bill for a number of reasons. One really important point: this is the legislative articulation of the Parks Canada mandate. Parks Canada has had a mandate to work in the marine environment for a number of years; I think the policy has been in place since 1984 or maybe 1986. It has worked on the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, and on Lake Superior, southern Gulf Islands, obviously Gwaii Haanas on the Queen Charlotte side of Gwaii. So this is not new for Parks Canada, it's just the legislative articulation.

They could have done this under the Parks Act; they had the mandate to do it. But they decided—wisely, I think—that things were different enough in the water, socially and biologically, that they needed to create a separate act for it. So I think this establishes their role quite clearly.

There is actually a strong commitment to consultation and cooperation in this community—stronger than in any other bill I can think of—and a strong need for consultation with other levels of government and other departments. It has a clearly defined establishment process and selection criteria, prohibitions, goals, and a finishable agenda. In my conversations with industry, they've certainly said they want these things.

For example, the oil and gas industry is fond of saying that there may be oil and gas reserves under Banff National Park, but they don't bother looking there, because it's off limits. They want to know the rules of the game: how to engage; what's on and what's off; where are the go zones and the no-go zones? I think this bill does a good job of providing that.

We do have some key recommendations that we think of as friendly amendments. We think these recommendations will help Parks Canada meet the goals they've set out for themselves, and we hope they'll be seen as helpful.

Probably the most contentious recommendation is strengthening the prohibitions. Right now, section 13, I think it is, puts any conservation area off limits for oil and gas, aggregate and mining. We think that prohibition should be expanded to include such things as open-cage finfish aquaculture, dragging, and bottom trawling, for example. When you look at the bill's goals for structure and function of habitat, and for environmental protection, we think we'll be well placed to limit those activities in these conservation areas.

To back us up, if you look at the recommendations of the ecological integrity panel at Parks Canada, you see pretty clearly that it's really hard to manage ecological integrity or environmental protection within these protected areas. Parks is finding out that they have to actually beef up the job they're doing on national parks. I'm not criticizing that; I think it's very good. But the point is that all around the world, we're finding very few examples of well-managed marine protected areas.

The Great Barrier Reef is currently undergoing its 25-year review, and the government has found that they haven't managed to meet their biodiversity and environmental protection goals. They're going back and looking at whether they need to strengthen some areas—with consultation and support from the fishermen, I should say.

I think we need to learn from this, and start with high levels of protection and transparency. That way, when local committees and communities are deciding whether they want these areas to go ahead, they've a clear sense of what they're deciding. It's their choice whether they want conservation or not, but let's be clear what they're choosing.

My biggest fear is that we'll go through a lengthy process, with a lot of work done by people from local communities who usually volunteer their time, and end up with an area that doesn't actually meet the goals it set out.

I should say, as well, that our asking for these prohibitions is not meant to be punitive, and it doesn't imply that we're against these activities everywhere. Far from it: part of saying where these activities can't take place is saying where they can take place. I think many of the arguments I've heard from the other side indicate that their fear of these prohibitions is premised on the idea that this is the thin end of the wedge: that we want to get rid of these activities—such as bottom-trawling, for instance—everywhere. I want to make it clear that's certainly not our case.

If we look at Parks Canada's mandate on the west coast, for example, there are five marine regions that Parks Canada wants to represent under their policy—which, again, has been in place for over ten years. In two of the proposed regions—Gwaii Haanas in the Queen Charlotte Islands, and Haida Gwaii and the southern Gulf Islands—I don't believe there's any oil and gas potential or interest there at all. And on the Queen Charlottes in the Haida Gwaii, the oil and gas companies have already voluntarily ceded their oil and gas rights.

• 0940

There are five areas—well, four, because I believe Haida Gwaii actually represents two areas, because the island's geography covers two regions. Anyway, three areas will already be represented on the west coast without interfering with oil and gas activities at all. So I don't think we need fear this being seen as an attack on the industry as a whole. I think we would all agree that there are places where industry can take place, and other places where we should restrict it.

Our second recommendation is to tie the issuing of permits to the management plan, to make sure that all permits are consistent with the act. I think we all assume that if we have a good management plan for an existing protected area or marine conservation area, this will do the job—and we should have that expectation.

But right now, permits can be issued by a number of departments and by the park superintendent, and none of these permits actually refer at all to the management plan. I think it would make a lot of sense to ensure that all permits issued, no matter by whom, tie into the goals of the management plan. The oceans are a complicated place, and 19 different departments have some sort of management authority over them.

This makes sense: on land, a huge number of different departments handle resource use and management. It's the same on the water as on the land. We should leave it that way—but let's make sure the agencies issuing those permits have to check back with the management plan, to make sure the activities taking place are actually consistent with the goals that have been set. These goals have been set through consultation and consensus with the local committee, which I think is the most democratic way to do it.

Our third recommendation is for what we call advanced review. This applies on land too, but especially in the water, because of the fluid nature of the marine environment. Activities occurring outside the marine park conservation area can have a huge impact on our ability to achieve our goals in those areas.

The example that's always brought up is an oil spill taking place two metres outside the boundary of a protected area, and then flowing right in. In some cases, that's unavoidable. But what we'd like is to have these marine conservation areas be considered for environmental assessments under CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to make sure that major development occurring near the boundary of conservation areas should mitigate its effects as much as possible.

I'll give an example of this: the Sable offshore energy project off the coast of Nova Scotia. When it went through its review process, the panel decided—and I think this was a good decision—that the project had to take into account its effect on The Gully, very close to the development project. This was not a protected area, but it was a recognized important biological area.

So the Sable proponents had to develop a code of practice to make sure that everything they did mitigated as much as possible any damage to The Gully. They did this, they've stuck to it quite nicely, and I think that was a good example of corporate leadership. So far, we haven't seen any evidence that the Sable project has damaged The Gully—and believe me, we've been keeping our eyes open. They've done a good job on that.

The Chair: I wonder how long you have to complete, because we want to give time for members to question the witnesses and your three colleagues.

Mr. Josh Laughren: I'm going to wrap up—actually, that was my last point.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Josh Laughren: I think this is an important point: the Sable offshore energy project went ahead on time and on budget, and it's now pumping gas, yet it was done in a way that didn't affect what we hope will eventually be a protected area. Having the best environmental view doesn't mean that development can't go forward—it just means it goes forward intelligently. There's proof it can work.

So we support the bill, and we hope our changes are seen in a friendly light.

With that, I'll close. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McGuinness.

Mr. Patrick McGuinness (Vice-President, Fisheries Council of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Fisheries Council of Canada is a trade association representing provincial fisheries associations in Atlantic Canada and Ontario, and fishing companies in British Columbia and Nunavut. As well, we also represent three major fleet sectors: the deep-sea groundfish, northern shrimp, and scallop.

• 0945

I'll make some overview comments. We do have two improvements that we think are friendly, to steal Josh's term.

This represents a unique dilemma for us in the Fisheries Council of Canada. We have difficulty with the form of the bill. However, the bill itself is a good example of putting in place appropriate legislated parliamentary checks and balances on ministers and government officials.

With regard to the form of the bill, our view is that if there is a need for legislation to establish marine conservation areas, such legislation should be incorporated in the Oceans Act under the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. As Josh mentioned, there are already 19 departments doing something in the marine area. Our view is that it's inefficient and cumbersome public administration to bring forward this MCA initiative in its own bill under the responsibility of a different minister and department.

The fishing industry, for example, is working right now with the Fisheries and Oceans minister and officials regarding the development of an oceans strategy for Canada and an approach to the introduction of marine protected areas, which are part of the Oceans Act. These tasks are the results of the establishment of the Oceans Act in 1996, which stated in part II, paragraph 29, that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans “...shall lead and facilitate the development and implementation of a national strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems...”.

So our point is that bringing forward this initiative at this time under the responsibility of the Minister of Canadian Heritage to be administered by officials of the Department of Canadian Heritage undermines the ocean leadership role assigned to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans under the Oceans Act. Ladies and gentlemen, either we have a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is responsible for these issues or we don't.

In summary, regardless of the merits of this initiative, the manner in which it is brought forward will lead to further confusion, duplication, and conflicts in its implementation.

If an MCA is warranted in a particular area, it should only be approved as part of an integrated oceans management plan. This is what many communities are starting, such as the coastal communities in Bonavista. We're starting to have integrated management plans, looking first at land-water interface with regard to pollution, and then it will be moving out in a very comprehensive way and looking at closed areas with regard to fisheries or marine protected areas.

Work toward the development of these plans is now underway under the auspices of the Oceans Act, led by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to form part of a comprehensive ecosystem approach to what we should be doing in the oceans. To establish free-standing legislation outside of the Oceans Act regarding MCAs adds, in our view, a layer of unnecessary complexity to the task of bringing industries, communities, and other interested parties together to develop ocean management plans. That work is starting to have resonance in the coastal communities, and to now bring in something that is going to be administered by a different group of people is just going to cause confusion.

If MCAs are to be an important initiative, and we support the initiative, let them be clearly part of Canada's oceans strategy wherein the MCA tool could be assessed along with other tools, such as marine protected areas, as Josh mentioned.

The final point is that Heritage Canada has no scientific capability to assess whether or not an MCA is ecologically warranted. Ladies and gentlemen, that expertise resides in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Having said that about the form, I'll talk about the actual document. Notwithstanding the above objections with regard to the form, the actual drafting of the legislation is commendable in many respects. We fully support the provisions in clauses 5 and 7 that it is the Governor in Council who establishes a marine conservation area, not simply a minister, and only after the appropriate committees of the House of Commons and Senate have had the opportunity to review the MCA proposal. We think that's an excellent way to do public administration.

• 0950

Having said that, we do have two changes that we recommend. One is in the preamble, where the preamble talks about the “precautionary principle”. We are suggesting that be changed to the “precautionary approach”, simply because in fisheries around the world we use the term “precautionary approach”, as opposed to “precautionary principle”. That's simply because “precautionary approach” is consistent in the wording of the marine chapter, chapter 17 of UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and also the hopefully soon-to-be-ratified United Nations fisheries agreement.

Then, with respect to subclause 7(1), where it's implied that if there is an MCA initiative, it would be obviously submitted to this committee and your comparable committee in the Senate, and where it says “or to such other committee as the House may designate”, we would suggest that it be made a little more specific. We basically propose an amendment that with respect to an amendment or a proposed MCA that could affect an ongoing commercial fishery, the proposed amendment shall be referred to the standing committee of each house that normally considers matters relating to fisheries.

That's just to say that for an MCA, there's no question that this committee should look at it, but if there's an ongoing fishery, we would hope that the House would also designate the fisheries committee to look at it.

What I'm going to do now is simply identify a number of paragraphs that we think are essential to keep, in terms of maintaining the support of the fishing industry.

We fully support subclause 9(4), wherein MCA management plans respecting fishing, aquaculture, fisheries management, marine navigation, and marine safety are subject to agreement with the Minister of Fisheries. As well, we fully support, and feel that it's essential, subclause 11(1) requiring that a management advisory committee be established for each MCA regarding the formulation, review, and implementation of the management plan for an MCA.

We also fully support subclause 15(2) with respect to fishing licences, subclause 15(3), that a superintendent may not amend, and so on, and also subclause 16(2), which requires that regulations respecting fisheries management and conservation or that restrict or prohibit fishing or aquaculture, marine navigation, or safety may be made only on a joint recommendation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

In conclusion, because of our concern, we do recommend that the bill be withdrawn and that officials of Canadian Heritage and Fisheries and Oceans Canada enter discussions with a view to bring forward an amendment to the Oceans Act to specifically provide for the establishment of marine conservation areas where warranted as part of Canada's oceans strategy. However, if this advice is not taken and the bill does proceed, we want to re-emphasize our support for certain recurring themes of the legislation: The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must concur on initiatives affecting the fisheries; the need for a public sector and private sector management advisory committee to implement a designated MCA; and a final, quick, tightly structured reference to the House committees regarding an MCA proposal.

On that last point, with respect to the reference to the House committees, we believe the bill as written strikes the right balance. We would object to an enhanced role of the committees beyond that envisaged in the bill. While we want to guard against initiatives that may be bulldozed through by ministers and officials, we do not want public policy issues that have received already considerable consultation, discussion, and accommodations in terms of the design, and whatever, of an MCA, to be held hostage to committees that may not have benefited from the dialogue of competing interest, and therefore the committee members, not having been part of the process, may not be able to make a judgment with that full background.

So the bottom line in terms of the writing of the legislation and all that sort of stuff is A-plus; we're prepared to adopt it pretty well holus-bolus. Unfortunately, it's the wrong minister.

The Chair: Ms. Spence.

Ms. Christie Spence (Co-manager, Wildlands Campaign, Canadian Nature Federation): Thank you for the opportunity to present to this committee. I'm representing the Canadian Nature Federation today. We have over 40,000 members and supporters across the country. We represent the naturalist community, the experts out there with their binoculars and little hand lenses looking at nature.

• 0955

Over the years, we've maintained a strong interest and commitment in the protection of marine conservation, and in particular, the establishment and management of marine conservation areas, particularly with respect to Parks Canada.

At our annual general meeting in Sackville, New Brunswick, several years ago, our membership unanimously supported a resolution calling on Parliament to pass the proposed national marine conservation areas act and to protect those conservation areas from oil and gas exploration, mining and aggregate extraction, bottom trawling and dragging, dumping, and finfish farming.

With respect to this particular bill, we fully support the federal government initiatives to pass legislation to enable the establishment and management of marine conservation areas. We view this draft legislation as a clear improvement on earlier proposals circulated by Parks Canada in the document entitled Charting the Course and the predecessor to this bill, Bill C-48. We commend Parks Canada for its work in this regard.

In particular, we feel that there are some very strong elements in this bill, and we fully support those. These include the affirmation of the importance of marine ecosystems to the preservation of overall global biodiversity; the strong commitment to consultation and inclusive decision-making in marine conservation areas—I think we all agree on that; commitment that once marine conservation areas are established, they won't be reduced in size; the emphasis on ecosystem management, the precautionary principle or approach, and the need for a representative system of marine conservation areas; the requirement for regular parliamentary reporting on the state of the marine conservation area system; and the recognition of the importance of providing opportunities for coastal communities to continue some sustainable use of the ocean's resources.

We do, however, have some concerns with the bill, friendly suggested amendments, once again. I won't go into all of them, but I can summarize some of the important ones initially.

We'd like to speak to the prohibitions that are articulated in the bill; the management powers of the Minister of Canadian Heritage; the power of the wardens and enforcement officers who will be responsible for enforcing the act; the ability of the bill to mitigate or prevent environmental damage within an MCA; and the need for a mandatory review clause for the bill. I won't go into all these; I'll just summarize them.

I think it's important to reiterate, though, that we believe this act is very important and has the potential to complement the Oceans Act. The different purposes and mandates of the two acts together can contribute significantly to the protection of our marine ecosystems without unnecessary duplication or wasting of scarce public resources.

Parks Canada must continue to be a lead federal agency with respect to the formalized, systematic conservation of marine habitat, as well as their mandate on the land. It has developed a systems plan that is significant and a longstanding policy that has gone through several national consultation processes. While the Oceans Act remains one of the country's key marine protection tools, the areas protected under it are, and will tend to be, small sites without the broader conservation value that a system of protected areas could have.

I'll jump right to the prohibitions section.

Under clauses 12 through 15, the only prohibited activities in marine conservation areas are disposal and use of public lands, mining and hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation, and the requirement for a special permit to dump. In our view, this list is incomplete. There are certain activities that we know to be harmful to the marine environment. If the precautionary principle is truly to be employed in MCAs, as stated in the preamble, and if marine conservation areas are actually to be effective as a conservation tool, then harmful activities should be prohibited.

CNF is of the view that the following activities must be prohibited: dredging; blasting; the building of oil, gas, or power lines; the use of acoustic deterrence devices; dragging, and habitat-harming gear generally; and gillnetting, at the very least in core protection zones and buffer zones. The CNF in principle does not support aquaculture activities in MCAs. Shellfish aquaculture may be acceptable in some cases, but we cannot support any type of finfish aquaculture.

I'd like to point out that we understand the government's concerns about having an extensive list of prohibitions or a very specific list of prohibitions, the concern being that the government won't be able to engage affected communities in consultations and negotiation. I'd just like to point out that from our experience—and we've had a fair bit of experience in community consultations on national park proposals—it's very important to be upfront, open, honest, and transparent when dealing with communities.

• 1000

According to subclause 4(3), there are activities that just would not meet that test of sustainable use and protecting the ecosystem structure and function. And if there's no intention of allowing those activities under the act, it's very important for building trust and good relationships with communities, in consultations, and later in negotiations, to be very clear about what won't be allowed. We feel that the activities we've listed should not occur in those areas.

We would like to highlight the conservation mandate of this bill, which we feel is not quite front and centre, and would like to articulate clearly, in subclause 8(2), the role of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in managing the marine ecosystem for conservation. Our suggestion would be to change it to a statement that reads:

The first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of national marine conservation areas will be the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes.

We understand the reluctance of this government to use the specific words “ecological integrity”, because it sounds like the National Parks Act, but there can be wording that would work, and that is already in subclause 4(3), so that it would read:

The first priority of the Minister when considering all aspects of the management of national marine conservation areas will be protecting the structure and function of ecosystems, including the submerged lands and water column, with which they are associated.

We're also concerned about the ability of this act to mitigate or prevent environmental damage. We feel this section is somewhat weak and compromises the minister's ability to effect meaningful prevention or mitigation of environmental damage. Specifically, the bill talks about it being an offence to not clean up something that has been discharged in a marine conservation area. But in fact, dumping into an area or having a discharge of a harmful substance is not prohibited. In our opinion, too much room exists for an offender to argue that they did not discharge or deposit the substance within the marine conservation area; that their actions to clear up were reasonable, even if only cursory or completely ineffectual—reasonable measures are suggested, but that's not defined; or that action under any other act, for example, the Canada Shipping Act, the Arctic Waters Prevention Act, or the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, should have been taken instead, and therefore the Minister of Heritage cannot deal with this action.

So we'd like to see that area strengthened. It creates a very difficult position for the caretakers of the marine conservation area, and the legislation needs strengthening in this regard.

Finally, we feel, given that this is brand new legislation—of course, Canada has some experience in this regard with marine parks, but it's still a new area for them—that there may be some need at a later date to make small improvements or amendments, as experience shows that they are required to facilitate management and conservation. We would suggest that a period of seven years would be acceptable as one after which to look again at this bill and see if there couldn't be improvements. And there is precedent for this sort of provision in legislation, notably in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

So in conclusion, we would urge the standing committee to pass Bill C-10, which we strongly support, notwithstanding some of our suggestions to improve it.

Finally, we'd like to emphasize that Parks Canada has great difficulty meeting its very important and strong legislative mandates, because of a lack of resources. So we would strongly urge this committee to recommend to Parliament that it allocate significant human and financial resources to meet this mandate and to finally represent some of our marine regions.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Lien.

Dr. John Lien (Whale Research Group, Memorial University of Newfoundland): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure for me to be here. This is the second time I've come to talk about this particular act.

I really don't represent anybody. I have worked in coastal communities in Newfoundland for decades. My work is largely concentrated on conservation of marine resources. I've served on the FRCC, currently I serve on the minister's committee on oceans, and I've been a science adviser to the round table on the environment and the economy.

I come at this bill from a general framework of being concerned to conserve the environment on which our coastal communities depend. We cannot have coastal communities unless we have a secure ocean environment. They're just locked together. So my interest in this bill really comes from that angle.

• 1005

First, I'd like to talk about why we need marine protected areas. I live in a small coastal community in Newfoundland. My community, like most rural Newfoundland communities, has been devastated by the loss of ocean resources. It's been nine years since we've had a moratorium on northern cod. This cost the Government of Canada billions of dollars. It has changed our communities forever and changed our people forever. It will never be the same because of this loss of resource.

We've been in this moratorium for a long period of time. The FRCC report that came out this week now says that the biomass in northern cod is at the lowest historical level ever. It's gone down since the moratorium. It's at 3% of historical biomass, and we still are fishing it, because we have to. So the prognosis for that stock is very grim.

The collapse of the groundfish and northern cod resources in Newfoundland was caused by human error, and that is very important to understand. It was errors of science and it was errors of greed. The effects of these errors were profound on the stocks, because natural sanctuaries that had existed forever simply were gone.

Historically, we could not fish through ice. We couldn't fish at great distances from shore because we didn't have refrigeration. We couldn't take certain kinds of weather because our boats weren't secure, and so on. There were all kinds of areas of the ocean where fish naturally had protection from us, but our technology has changed since the Second World War. We can now catch fish through pack ice, at great depths, in any kind of weather, and at any distance. Fish have no place to hide. So when we make mistakes and when we are greedy, there is no cushion. That has disappeared.

Fundamentally, that's the reason we need marine protected areas, and it doesn't really matter how we get them, under what legislation. We must now artificially restore sanctuaries as a hedge against these kinds of human error. It's not just the fish that need protection, and I want to emphasize this. It is the fish and our coastal communities, because they go hand in hand.

It's important for you to realize that in an international context Canada is far behind in establishing ocean sanctuaries.

I recently attended a meeting of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation under NAFTA. Mexican colleagues told me that 19% of their territorial waters are in sanctuary status, and they have a budget annually of $45 million U.S. to manage them.

The vice-president's commission on the oceans in the United States recently received a recommendation that 20% of all U.S. waters be placed in some kind of sanctuary status. President Clinton, under executive order, implemented this. The steps are under way already to place 20% of their coral reefs in sanctuary status, and this initiative is moving forward.

It's not just governments that are coming to this realization. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, which is probably one of the most distinguished bodies of science in North America, has recommended that 20% of all ocean area be set aside for protection from the kinds of errors we can make.

So you can see I strongly support this piece of legislation. I don't think it has any basic faults, and it will nicely supplement the other legislation under which reserves can be created under the Oceans Act and under the Environment Canada legislation.

• 1010

It's important to know that Parks Canada will bring a unique contribution to the ocean sanctuaries of Canada. Bill C-10 is designed to protect representative areas. The Oceans Act does not say that. They protect special areas. The same is true under Environment Canada's legislation. Both of the other federal initiatives have a much narrower focus. Because Parks Canada is setting out to protect representative areas, they will have the most important contribution in protecting the broadest range of biodiversity. Under this legislation we will meet the expectations of the biodiversity convention.

I like the way the bill is designed. The bill creates areas that are zoned. Some have full protection. That probably means no oil and gas exploration. It means no fishing in many cases. Such a zoning program is necessary, so you protect these essential cores that are so sensitive and vulnerable to us and then you establish buffers around these with zones that allow greater and greater amounts of human activity. This kind of approach worldwide has been the successful approach. It really is the best practice in oceans as far as everything I know is concerned.

In some of these zones the primary activity that will be encouraged will be recreation, tourism, interpretation, and education. This is going to prove to be one of the most important contributions of areas that are created under this bill. I want to emphasize this.

Recently in surveys in the United States and Canada people were asked about their views towards oceans. Over and over again, Canadians said we're concerned about oceans, we really care about them. We're concerned about overfishing, we're concerned about pollution, and we're concerned about oil spills.

They also didn't know very much about oceans and how they work: the kinds of ecological services they provide, the processes that are essential to create the environment that life requires. Most shocking to me, and this was consistent in both the United States and Canada, people took no personal responsibility for the state of oceans. They did not see that their activities were connected to the state of oceans in any way. In my community we can see that we are. We know where our sewage goes, we know where our food comes from, and so on.

It's true that in central Canada and in the prairies you are connected to oceans as well. By agricultural practices, industrial practices, transportation, consumerism, and so on, you are affecting the state of our oceans.

I believe that one of the really unique contributions of Parks Canada is making that connection for Canadians. It's essential that we have that. I don't think we will achieve adequate conservation protection for oceans unless we have a committed, caring, and knowledgeable Canadian public about oceans. That's needed to support even legislation like this.

Parks Canada has an excellent track record. Surveys show that they are the most respected communicator in Canada about environmental issues. So they are positioned to provide a very unique service.

All of you as MPs probably have as a first item of concern how this bill will affect your coastal communities. It's appropriate that you worry about that. I can talk a little bit about the Terra Nova National Marine Conservation Area process. I was working with communities when that was going on.

The reality of marine reserves worldwide is that they are never established successfully if there is not local support. Graeme Kelleher of the Great Barrier Reef will say that as the first principle of any kind of marine sanctuary, you must have local community support. In the Parks Canada policy on national marine conservation areas they say local support is essential, and I think that's exactly right.

• 1015

I'll talk a little bit about the lack of local support that occurred with the Terra Nova National Marine Conservation Area. I think there's a number of things that went wrong in that process. It occurred at a time when we just felt very burned by government. We'd been told our fishery reserves were okay and all of a sudden we had a moratorium. And I think the vivid image of how deeply we felt that were the people trying to kick down the door to get in to talk to the Minister of Fisheries. We had really caused a deep distrust of the federal government, and here was another federal government department saying we're going to do something great for you. So the timing was very difficult and there was this great lack of trust.

There was also a very remarkable lack of cooperation by other government agencies and the provincial government. Everybody let Parks Canada carry this can alone. This need to cooperate just didn't happen with the partners that needed to be involved.

Another problem was that the timeframe was much too fast. Communities make decisions in a different timeframe from what you do or any of us do. It takes us a long time to achieve consensus and to work through problems so we know how we want to work on them. We gave them a very short period of time, and if there was any imposed agenda in that process it was the timeframe. We wanted answers that fit our timetable, because we had to get it in for the budgetary year and things like this.

Another thing that was wrong in this process is at the outset, the FFAW, the fishermen's union in Newfoundland, did not get involved. The president of the fishermen's union recently—and he was talking about oceans and other players like oil and gas—said “We've got squatters rights to the whole damn thing”. There was a sense in which the fishermen's union of Newfoundland saw other entrants being accommodated in oceans, tourism, education, protection and so on, and it was like an allocation issue for the union. So from the outset they were not brought onstream to see how it would be to their advantage.

The last thing I'll mention is at the time this happened there was an active movement where in rural Newfoundland there was concern about privatization of traditional access, whether it was rivers, cutting wood, or fishing, and the national marine conservation area program feasibility study was looked at as another privatization kind of effort. But what happened was people talked about the issues, they talked about the solutions that might be possible in a national marine conservation area, and they said no, we don't want to do that, and Parks Canada listened.

We could talk about this as a failure or we could talk about this as where the government listened to local people. And however you want to construct it, the bottom line is that the government made a good effort: they established a lot of education programs, focused a lot of research effort in this area, and the people said no. The reality is the research programs are still going on. There's a greater concentration of research in the boundary areas proposed as a national marine conservation area now than there ever was before this initiative came.

Since the failure of the national marine conservation area, we have, at the request of local fishermen's committees, established two pilot marine protected areas. There are four other communities that are asking for marine protected areas and a program something similar to the marine protected areas that have been established.

• 1020

A lot of good has come out of this, and there was a lot of discussion where we concentrated on how we could best meet conservation needs in the ocean, and the national marine conservation area simply wasn't one of them. I can't speak for the feasibility study committee themselves, but I was actively involved in the communities and I was actively involved with Parks Canada and a lot of the other players in this. I think there was hurt at the time because there were some bad feelings that were expressed, but people frankly looked at the issue of conservation, which is a difficult one, from very different sets of eyes—from fishermen's eyes, from mayors' eyes, from tourism eyes—in all of this, and there's bound to be some conflict when that happens. But I think the net effect of the exercise from this juncture in time can be said to be a positive one.

I emphasize that it's important to approach the communities with a flexible agenda but also a flexible timeframe. I think communities will never match the timeframes of government. One of the things I particularly like in this bill is that the process is said not to be a rigid one. We'll hope that in practice it stays that way.

I'll make two final comments. One is that I would like to remind you that if this bill passes, implementing it is going to be a very large task, and I don't think Parks Canada can be expected to do that by robbing existing budgets. This will be a new initiative that must find supplementary funds. Work on oceans is expensive, and work in coastal communities takes time, so I expect these budgets would not be trivial.

I would endorse what the Canadian Nature Federation said. We're going to be on a fairly steep learning curve, and it would be a shame if we were encumbered by a piece of legislation that didn't quite fit what we had to accomplish. So like the Oceans Act, which had a three-year mandatory review, I'd suggest that a clause be added where we review this so we can have a second look and do some second thoughts about the appropriateness of all the clauses in this bill. Anyway, I'd recommend this to you. I think it's important to our fish, to our communities, and to biodiversity.

Thanks for the opportunity to talk to you.

The Chair: I'll open the floor to questions. Ms. Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: First of all, I'd like to ask Mr. Laughren how it was that it came to pass that you were able to be a witness for us. Were you invited, or was this something that you've been following along in the news?

Mr. Josh Laughren: We've been following this for five years, probably, ever since the initial iteration of the bill. We work a lot on the Queen Charlottes, Haida Gwaii, and in Prince Rupert, and it was pretty obvious from the people we work with there that this was something we wanted to have input on. When Bill C-48 was being discussed, I think we approached Parks Canada and asked to be a witness. I was the person who came for that as well. I'm pretty sure we sent in a note asking if we could appear.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Do you have any idea, having followed this through since it was Bill C-48, of what the price tag will be on this for either one or all of the proposed designated marine conservation areas?

Mr. Josh Laughren: No, I wouldn't hazard a guess.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Being the World Wildlife Fund, your organization obviously raises money to protect wildlife. Would your organization be willing to cost-share in the construction, maintenance, and upkeep of these marine parks?

Mr. Josh Laughren: We are a fund. Our money goes out the door. We certainly already do take part in joint initiatives with government and local communities on funding work, so there's no question that we would be interested in helping with parts of the work. But our funding as an NGO, which is tied to our supporters, and donations, and foundations, is much less secure than that of government's. So I think it would be dangerous for us to enter into and commit to fulfilling a government mandate that we then might not be able to fulfil.

• 1025

There's no question, we are very interested in helping fund research projects and community initiative projects. We do, and we will continue to. We're especially interested in these conservation areas.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: But you don't have any idea of what even one proposed conservation area would cost?

Mr. Josh Laughren: No, I really don't. I wouldn't pretend to guess. But I would counter that by saying we've seen pretty clearly the cost of mismanagement, as Dr. Lien, who always inspires me, brought up in terms of Newfoundland, which is in the billions and billions of dollars. I don't think anything the conservation community could have proposed there would have cost more socially or financially than the mismanagement of that stock cost.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Tremblay, do you have any questions?

[English]

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, with regard to Mr. McGuinness of the Fisheries Council, I want to take issue with the issue of how we apply the precautionary principle. I draw to the committee's attention that in fact the principle's also been incorporated in a number of international laws, treaties, protocols, and declarations. There are at least 20 from the information we have from the Royal Society when they issued their report. Without trying to sound arrogant, I think it would behoove every member of this committee to read the precautionary principle as they enunciate it. My understanding from a number of groups around the world is that this is probably the best enunciation of the principle that we have, and I think Canada should be proud we were the country that did this.

I have a question. Perhaps I'll make one more point about the Fisheries Council and this whole issue of whether this bill should be under the management of Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. McGuinness was in front of the environment committee yesterday, and the chair of that committee took the opportunity to take serious issue with a number of the points made by the Fisheries Council and the work that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has done, which is not exemplary by any means.

I think Professor Lien's comments on the impact of what's happened, and the article in the Globe and Mail this morning about the situation with the salmon stock off the east coast, etc., certainly militates strongly in favour of Parks Canada being responsible for this bill rather than Fisheries and Oceans.

I have a question for Ms. Spence, and perhaps Professor Lien. We did have some information yesterday from an ecology group from Nova Scotia about the coral off our coast, and that the dragging in particular is a major problem for it. I know your position, Ms. Spence, but Professor Lien, what about that? You didn't indicate there should be perhaps prohibitions, or at least you didn't address it. Would you agree that we should prohibit dragging in the marine conservation areas?

Dr. John Lien: I personally would agree with that.

The data on the impact of dragging varies. DFO has been doing experiments on the Scotian Shelf and on the Grand Banks. But their experiments have been where they drag every so often in swath exactly the same place. What they find is that these areas regrow very quickly, not necessarily hard coral, but most of the benthic creatures. But of course if I try to eradicate dandelions on my lawn by picking just a swath, you know all the seed would come in. It probably isn't a fair experiment. So there are some very basic study differences and arguments about how we need to conduct them.

There is no question that dragging destroys hard coral. The percentage of ocean that has been dragged is higher than the percentage of terrestrial habitats in North America that have been logged or clear-cut. So there is little doubt that it's having an impact.

Where fishing occurs, it doesn't occur in these nice swaths where you can re-colonize from the sides. It occurs like this. So there may be very permanent effects on the benthic habitat. In some areas of the ocean that certainly has been demonstrated.

• 1030

Mr. Joe Comartin: To follow this up, Professor Lien, the information we had from that group was that there has been very little research, that is, we don't know a lot about the coral. Do you have any additional information?

Dr. John Lien: There was an international conference in Halifax last year on the hard corals of the world, and it was a very important start on gaining this information. I'm turning scientific interest to this.

The problem with most of our ocean science is that it is skin-deep. Our science extends to very few creatures in the ocean. When I served on FRCC, I think it was over half of those commercial stocks we were managing intensely where we didn't have any information from scientists or not enough information—and this is where all our ocean research dollar goes. When you get down to a hard coral that nobody really cares about, but has this value because of biodiversity and all these other creatures in that community, often we know very little of their life history, their ecological role, or anything else. So over and over again people are going to be able to say what you said about hard corals, that we don't know enough to really protect them at this point.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, through you, we could ask Mr. Comartin if he could give a copy of the paper he's speaking about on the precautionary principle to the clerk, so that it could be distributed to members. It would be greatly appreciated. I think it would be valuable for us all to read it, and I'd like to thank Mr. Comartin for that information.

Mr. McGuinness, when you started, you said you were in a unique dilemma, and you supported the bill—I understood your presentation. But you did raise some interesting questions, and perhaps I could use the issues you raised to ask our other members to respond to them.

When you said this should be in the Oceans Act, you used the words duplication, confusion, saying there's no scientific ability within Heritage itself. I wonder if Mr. Laughren, Dr. Lien, or Ms. Spence could comment on this. If there is this concern, if there is duplication and confusion—and we shouldn't be duplicating—what's the argument as to why we should proceed under this, apart from what Mr. Comartin said? What's the legal argument as to why we should proceed under the Department of Canadian Heritage?

Mr. Josh Laughren: The best way I can answer is to compare it to terrestrial. In the terrestrial environment we just accept that there are hundreds of different laws at many different levels of government that apply to management in the landscape. With the oceans, because it's been mostly fishing for the past 500 years, it's been mainly one organization, Fisheries and Oceans, that's managed the matter. Terrestrially, we have national parks, we have provincial parks, we have municipal parks, we have ecological reserves, we have bird sanctuaries. We probably have something like a dozen or so types of areas for conservation.

That makes sense. You wouldn't want Parks Canada managing High Park in Toronto, and you wouldn't want the municipal government looking after Wood Buffalo National Park. There are differences in scale and differences in usage, so that it makes sense for different agencies to be involved in conservation. Conservation of the environment cuts through everything, from resource use to communities to biodiversity.

So when we move to the ocean, I don't think we should be surprised that environment is going to touch a whole number of different agencies. If you want to talk about duplication, NRCan has environmental regulations and looks at some environmental things, and it leans on other departments, like the Department of Environment, for advice, information, transport. Every single government agency has some form of environment that it looks at or considers, and I don't think it's duplication at all to have the three departments, CWS, through Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, and Parks Canada, looking at protected areas in the ocean.

The hard corals are a good example. Those hard corals are 1,000 metres down, which is not unusual, off the Scotian Shelf, and you want to protect those. You don't need a national park, you don't need a marine conservation area to do that. That might be either an Oceans Act NPA or closure under the Fisheries Act. Those are different tools in the suite of toolboxes that we can use.

• 1035

If you want to look at the Queen Charlotte Islands, Haida Gwaii, with a large area, land-sea interface, islands with different uses, that's not something I can see Fisheries and Oceans doing very well.

John made, I thought, an excellent point. Yes, we need to conserve some of these areas, but the education, encouragement of tourism use, and encouragement of all Canadians to start caring about this are absolutely fundamental. Parks Canada has a wealth of expertise that no other agency has for that one. While they don't have fisheries-specific species knowledge, they do have, more so than DFO, a lot of landscape biologists, ecologists, who are used to looking at things on a larger scale.

So I think it's entirely complementary, and it would be wrong if we were to try to push everything that happens to the oceans under one department. I think it would be impossible, frankly.

Ms. Christie Spence: I thought that was covered off pretty well. We are very supportive of the idea of a comprehensive system of protecting representative areas across the country, both in freshwater ecosystems and in our oceans, and Parks Canada has experience with that. They didn't get off to a great start in Bonavista Bay, but they have experience in community consultations, they have a very strong education mandate, consultation mandate, and there is this ability to look at different zones, to perhaps lean on the Fisheries Department for expertise in enforcing strong conservation provisions on the water or specific fisheries expertise. There's a range of experience that Parks Canada can bring to this. And most particularly, in dealing with the Canadian public at large, they have that capacity to consult across the country, to engage constituents. So I think it's very important that they have the ability to protect larger areas that are permanently legislated, as opposed to seasonal closures or very small areas that could be covered under the Fisheries Act.

Dr. John Lien: My agenda would be to put ocean conservation on the plate of every federal agency, whether it's External Affairs, Department of Transport, or National Defence. So I'm not worried that ocean conservation is now part of the job of another federal department. I don't think there's duplication. If you read the Oceans Act and read this act, they're directed at quite different strategies for selecting areas.

I also believe we should harness the unique capabilities of every agency to meet this ocean conservation objective. I made it clear that I believe structural conservation, protecting areas, is a very important part of that strategy. And it is absolutely the case that Parks Canada is a respected communicator and a great teacher. I think making that connection between our lives and the ocean for Canadians is critical in achieving ocean conservation. I think fisheries, agencies, and fishermen are generally more comfortable with DFO as an ocean manager. That, I believe, is because DFO has a long history of acting as an advocate for the industry, rather than as an environmental manager. It's a much more comfortable place.

I think the industry itself fears a new player in the ocean. It's like a new allocation. But I believe that Canadians, not just fishermen, have a vested interest in the quality of our ocean, and we have different interests than just commercial fishing. We need to protect ecological processes, we need to guarantee these services the oceans provide to us. So I don't think it's inappropriate at all for Parks Canada. It is not a mistake that they're involved, it's a very big plus, I think.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Ms. Spence and Dr. Lien, I share your enthusiasm in stressing that there will be additional moneys required and it will need a substantial investment. May I suggest that you bring your presentation also to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Hearn, have you any questions?

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's interesting to listen to the different views, and perhaps you have a lot of them shared here at the committee level also.

• 1040

There are two types of people, I believe, once you start talking about conservation and the environment. You have those who live in a dream world and you have the realists. Maybe I'm being unkind here. I should say perhaps those who have visions of what could really be, and those who are perhaps more concerned with what's going at the present time.

All of us realize what we're doing to the environment, both on land and in the oceans. We realize that if we don't protect it, it's not going to be there for our use for very long. But in the meantime, most people who live in marine areas make their living directly from within that marine environment.

I look at this bill, and it is so important in two ways. Number one, without proper legislation, we're going to see more and more moratoria throughout the country. Newfoundland right now, as Dr. Lien so clearly stated, is not the Newfoundland of twenty years ago. It will never be the same again, because governments, fisher persons themselves—everyone—didn't do the job or didn't pay attention to the signs, didn't look towards tomorrow.

A famous Newfoundlander said “While I must worry about today, I must also be concerned about tomorrow, because I don't want it to be like yesterday”. I think that's so true. We don't want tomorrow to be like yesterday. But there is that little piece in the middle where we must be concerned about today. If this act goes through, as it is presently presented, the establishment of the zones we would like in different parts of the country will meet with tremendous obstruction because of the concern of the people who live in these areas.

There are too many unknowns there yet—unknowns that perhaps are on the side of the visionaries more so than on the side of those who are living and depending upon that marine environment for livelihood.

I also think that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has to be the lead department in this, in order to get the support necessary, particularly in places such as Newfoundland, and I would think maybe British Columbia and others.

We have to proceed with care. If the support isn't established at the local level.... I think what Dr. Lien and others are doing in the Bonavista Bay area now is proving to be a tremendous success. We are seeing the establishment of protective zones because the people want them. They see the benefit of them, and they've learned from the past. But it's been done carefully with their input, their guidance, and the help of professionals. Maybe that's the way to do it. But if we start coming in with a heavy hand, we're going to run into the same thing as we ran into in Bonavista Bay.

We also have to realize that there are still people who have to make a living. When we talk about no dragging and no dredging and all of that, that's tremendous stuff. But tell that to the people in the adjacent community who can't get the boat out any more because the harbor's filled with silt, or who rely on scallop dragging to make those few meagre dollars that keep them alive and keep the community alive.

We have to be very careful in our approach. I'd like Mr. McGuinness and perhaps Dr. Lien to comment.

Mr. Patrick McGuinness: I certainly fully support what you say.

With respect to the proposal by Josh and Christine that dragging should be included in your prohibitions, I caution you against that. Some of my members are draggers. Some of them are gillnetters and whatever.

If in fact you do want to develop marine conservation areas in Newfoundland and the Maritimes and even in British Columbia, John Lien is absolutely right, you have to have local support—local support is grassroots—and allow them, as we say here, to develop a management plan. But if you go in there and part of your legislation says that a community of 500 people, maybe 100 of them are dragger fishermen.... It's going to look like an allocations issue. So you're going to continuously run into the problem that you have in Bonavista; that is, numerous fisheries resources and competing interests between gillnetters, draggers, whatever.

• 1045

All I'm saying is it would be a mistake and it would undermine your success if in fact you add that as a prohibition upfront in terms of the heavy hand. Nevertheless, if you develop an area of interest and you develop this type of management plan and people of interest and if there's sensitive coral in the area, I'm quite confident that responsible people and responsible fisheries commentators will say there should be a no-dragging area with respect to corals. That's understandable, because you are protecting something that's particularly delicate.

I would just like to reinforce that it is local. And, as John Lien said, if you're going to do it, it has to be flexible and it has to be perceived to be flexible. Our point is it's a nice piece of legislation. The coastal communities are more familiar with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Fisheries and oceans is already establishing ocean strategies. Josh and John mentioned marine protected areas. That's a tool in the Oceans Act.

Our concern is we would like to have everybody in the tent. We want to have that expertise from Parks Canada. We want to have the opportunity of maybe an ocean strategy, instead of a marine protected area. Maybe a marine conservation area is more appropriate.

Our concern now is you're going to have a Fisheries and and Oceans tent discussing their tool kit, and then some time later on you're going to have Parks Canada ask, what about the marine conservation area?

This is in terms of being practical, of worrying about today. But we also have a vision. We've learned from what has transpired. Our vision in fact is to develop a system that is focused on sustainable development. It recognizes there may in fact be areas that, with respect to either marine conservation areas or marine protected areas, are in the best interests of the fisheries.

Thank you very much.

Dr. John Lien: I guess what I would say, and Loyola knows this, is in our coastal communities we have a very complex structure and many of our discussions are very difficult. It doesn't matter if we're talking about the town council or the paving or the potholes. There will be difficult discussions—no question—in establishing a marine conservation area or a sanctuary or anything like this. It is the nature of the beast. These are complicated issues for us.

I'm reminded of this. Gordon Slade was Deputy Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland. He came home from work one day and his seven-year-old daughter said to him, “Daddy, there was a call from Ottawa and it was about fish. But there must be some mistake, there are no fish in Ottawa.” I think from these places it's difficult to understand the reality of the difficulties we face. That's why local support and the development of it is a difficult process and why exactly it's so essential.

I recognize the point of the Fisheries Council on the Oceans Act. It may be that way back in history we could have had all our legislation regarding oceans in one package. I don't know. That clearly isn't possible now. But I'm really very happy that we're going to have an agency that has such a good record in interpretation and education now joining an ocean conservation objective.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to Ms. Spence.

For my own clarification, you'd stated in your presentation that CNF does not support finfish aquaculture, but it does support some shellfish aquaculture initiatives. Is the position of the federation that you are in opposition to finfish aquaculture? What types of aquaculture initiatives do you support?

• 1050

Ms. Christie Spence: We oppose finfish aquaculture, for sure. There may be ways of doing shellfish aquaculture that would not go against the intent of this bill, or a management plan. We didn't make it very clear, and I apologize for that, but shellfish aquaculture might be a permitted activity under clause 12. But under clause 13, finfish aquaculture would be prohibited.

On this prohibition, just to reiterate, in terms of engaging communities, when we go into communities and appear to be very open to every possible idea, people say, “Well aren't you here to protect something? I don't really understand why you're here, if everything we do now we could possibly do in a conservation area.”

I think there is a mistrust of people who come from Ottawa—be they in the service of the crown, or people like us—that there must be some hidden agenda. They say, “If you're telling us we can do all these things, such as dragging, which we know has an effect on the ocean floor, then what's the point? Where's the fine print?” The fine print is in the bill, and it says that the ecosystem structure and function, and the submerged lands and the water column have to be protected, in some regard.

Recognizing that community support is essential, it's very hard to gain the trust and engagement of people in the communities, if they suspect there is a hidden agenda, or you're telling them they can do something, when really I would find it hard to imagine how some of these activities could be permitted, given subclause 4(3) and the intent of the bill.

The Chair: Are there any more questions from the members? Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: In relation to what we've heard, and I'm sure in relation to what we're going to hear, this is an extremely important piece of legislation. There are elements in this that are so badly needed, but there are elements in this that are going to cause tremendous problems and upsets in the marine environments themselves. I know we'll do our job here, but it's not something I'd like to see rushed through, for the sake of passing a piece of legislation.

We have a chance to do something right for a change and maybe we can do it, but there has to be a fair amount of massaging. Again, it's just my own opinion, and I'll leave it at that.

The Chair: Ms. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: You spoke about how Canada is far behind internationally. I know, with the endangered species legislation, we entered into an international convention and that's why we must pass that. Is there a similar convention we've signed internationally, with respect to marine conservation areas?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are the prohibitions that appear in clause 13 of the bill international ones? Are they prohibitions that other legislation around the world has? Are they wider than that? Going back to the dragging and the trawling in clause 13, are those prohibitions common around the world, or are they greater elsewhere? I'm following up on when you said we were lagging internationally.

Dr. John Lien: I think Josh can comment on this, as well.

I think we are a signee on the biodiversity convention, and that has very specific expectations about the ocean, as well as land. We participate in the IUCN, and I think they have also recommended that national governments—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: What does IUCN mean?

Dr. John Lien: It means International Union for the Conservation of Nature. There are recommendations to the nations that belong, to establish protected areas, as part of their responsibility in caring for the ocean environment.

Josh may have something better to say about that.

Mr. Josh Laughren: There's not much of an international standard, but I can give you a few examples.

The Great Barrier Reef, for example, in Australia doesn't allow any oil, gas, or mining within it, but it does allow trawling through some areas. The scale of that is massive. It's just huge—thousands of square kilometres.

Compare that to New Zealand next door, where they've gone a different route, with smaller, strictly controlled marine reserves, where no fishing is allowed at all. Both have shown some very good benefits, actually.

• 1055

Another example is the marine sanctuaries in the U.S., where no oil and gas are allowed. As a matter of fact, I think that's one of the reasons a few of them were initially established. In areas like Stelwagon Bank, off the east coast in the Gulf of Maine, they're undergoing a review right now, clearly realizing that keeping oil and gas out of an area is not the same as protecting it. A number of other uses also have impacts.

The U.S. also have some strictly closed areas, like the Dry Tortugas down in Florida, where they've created a series of areas closed to fishing, supported by fishermen. They are already seeing some benefits. So there's not much of a standard around the world, except there's a trend that the smaller the area, the tighter the protection. If you're willing to look at an area of thousands of square kilometres, then the types of uses tend to expand—and should.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: If there are no further questions from members, I have a question for Dr. Lien on coral.

I was told recently by a coral expert, who's done a lot of undersea diving and has studied coral, that coral represents a huge potential for oxygen. You were saying it would be equal to the output of the Amazon basin, if coral keeps being destroyed. You said it lives between 17 degrees and 33 degrees Celsius.

I understand we've now lost huge expanses of coral in the Maldives and the Seychelles because of seas warming beyond 33 degrees Celsius. Do you know about this? Can you comment on it? Give us your knowledge.

Dr. John Lien: I know a little bit. The corals we were talking about earlier are deep-water corals, and have quite a different role in the benthic environment. The corals I think you are talking about are the reefs. They are in shallower water, but they certainly exist around North America, and so on.

Recently, coral reefs have been in serious difficulty because of a small change in the temperature of the water. There was a U.S. task force on coral reefs and what could be done about them. As a result of that initiative, the U.S. took steps, and by executive order put 20% of the coral reefs in U.S. waters in protected sanctuary status.

I can't comment on what oxygen production occurs by coral reefs, but it's a very complicated issue. Recently, the contribution of oxygen by the Amazon has been a matter of discussion. I think oceans certainly are responsible for providing tremendous ecological services, taking care of carbon dioxide, providing oxygen, and so on. But I don't know what the balance would be—how coral reef production would compare to that of the Amazon.

The Chair: Mr. McGuinness, you're worried about the precautionary principle and you prefer the precautionary approach, which is now the new mantra, sadly.

We adopted the precautionary principle in Rio, which of course Canada was a leader in promoting, and we've used it in many pieces of legislation. What scares you about the precautionary principle, and why should it be an approach? In your view, what is the difference between the two?

Mr. Patrick McGuinness: You're quite right. All we've done in the fisheries, worldwide, is taken the precautionary principle and tried to apply it in the marine world. For example, in Rio de Janeiro at the UNCED conference, there's no question the 21 chapters of Agenda 21 all refer to—in forestry or whatever—the precautionary principle. In the fisheries chapter, chapter 17, it's a precautionary approach. We're just suggesting a wording change here.

• 1100

As John Lien quite well noted, we're basically saying that in fisheries and biology we are just at the beginning of our knowledge as to how fish in the marine world live, ecosystems, and all that sort of stuff. So recognizing, if you will, the inadequacy of our knowledge, to pretend that we can manage fisheries or the ecosystems on a strict principle type of approach.... Many biologists and world leaders in the marine world have said, well, what we really should be talking about is the precautionary approach.

Say, for example, that you have an understanding of the biomass of a particular fishery, what you would do then is set some sort of management strategy. One is that if that biomass reduced below a certain limit, you've already established what type of management regimes that you should undertake—whether it's closure or things of that nature. So it's not a major.... So we fully subscribe to the precautionary approach or the precautionary principle. I'm just saying that from a fisheries marine area, what has evolved both internationally and in Canada is using the words “precautionary approach” as opposed to “principle”. John Lien may be better able to explain than I.

The Chair: No, I just wanted to.... In your view, is the precautionary approach a lesser requirement than a precautionary principle?

Mr. Patrick McGuinness: No, basically what we've tried to do in fisheries is take, if you will, the principles that are out there. How do you then apply them in terms of managing a fishery, taking into account the precautionary principles? How do you actually ground test it? What does it mean? How do you apply it in terms of managing fisheries? As I say, one way is establishing certain thresholds or certain criteria. That would then spring certain types of actions by the management regime to either close an area; perhaps substantially reduce, if you will, the quota; or try to direct the fishery in a different area.

So we're not saying.... Let it be quite clear that we have no problem if you want to keep it as precautionary principle. We have no problem with that. We fully subscribe to the precautionary principle. It's just that in the terms that we use among the fisheries worldwide, we use a precautionary approach.

The Chair: Monsieur Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to thank all of our round table participants. I believe that all of us have some awareness of that situation. There is an imbalance, both in respect to protecting the environment and our resources and with respect to all the industrial development that requires that other resources be available.

In my riding, a national marine park was created, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park, which Mr. Lien is certainly familiar with and which, moreover, was created with the assistance of our chairman, in his previous life. He had very clearly understood what was involved in creating a national park on the Saguenay River fjord. This past summer, there was a festival that had to do with the fishery and, for the first time, the appearance of certain fish was noticed, fish which were returning to the fjord, including ouananiche and pickerel. This was quite a discovery for all the members of our regional community.

Mr. Lien, you mentioned in your presentation that all Canadians should perhaps show the same awareness of the importance of conserving our coasts. I would like to ask whether you have thought about how we, as a government, could bring this to the attention of all the Canadian provinces, both the central provinces and the coastal provinces. I would like your views on a strategy, as I am sure that you have started thinking about one.

[English]

Dr. John Lien: I think the Saguenay is a wonderful example of the flexibility with which we can create these protected areas. I think Saguenay in recent years has had some 300,000 visitors. Just getting Canadians into these areas so they can see this amazing environment, so they can experience the belugas there and the fin whales and things like this.... I think you can't love something you haven't experienced, so I think it's critical that we get Canadians on the water, next to the water.

• 1105

I think we have to discover the best ways to interpret cold water to Canadians. Most marine parks are in warm waters, where you jump in the water, and you're happy for hours. That's not true in Canada. We're going to have to be very inventive in involving citizens in what happens in the sea, how they can experience it, and so on.

I was just recently in Monterey, California, and at the aquarium there they have an ROV vehicle. This is a little submarine that just travels around the ocean by itself and transmits pictures back to a vessel. In the aquarium, they would show you what this machine was seeing. All of a sudden, you would see a little squid, and immediately they would cut to a bank of videos, and they would tell you about the life of this squid—what ate it, what it ate, and things like this. Then they go back live to the ROV, and the ROV would see something else, and they would again cut to a bank of videos.

I think that one of the most exciting developments—and one of the real challenges Parks Canada is going to have in these marine protected areas—is to develop techniques of interpretation and education for cold water. But just being there and having good interpretation, I think, is the way we make the connection of Canadians to the ocean environment.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Thank you very much to the witnesses. I would like to thank you very much on our behalf for taking the time and trouble to come here.

I should mention to Ms. Spence and Mr. Laughren that your briefs were not distributed because the rule here is that they have to be translated into French. This is why we didn't distribute them today. It's against the rules. So we are going to have them translated and circulated to members after they have been translated. So in the future, if you remember to send them to us a little early in time, we'll make sure they're translated for the members then.

Okay. Well, thank you very much again.

The meeting is suspended.

There's lunch here for members and the witnesses. I think there might be enough for anybody who is here. We'll resume at twelve.

• 1107

• 1211

The Chair: [Technical difficulty—Editor]...Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. We are now coming to panel number two, where we have our three witnesses—from the University of Victoria, Mr. Philip Dearden, professor of the department of geography; from the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Mr. Michael D'Eça, legal counsel; and from the Assembly of First Nations, Mr. Ovide Mercredi, who is a political adviser to the national chief.

Mr. Dearden, would you like to start?

Professor Philip Dearden (Department of Geography, University of Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by thanking you for this opportunity to come and address the committee and apologize for my failure to transmit my brief in time so that it could be reproduced for this committee. I do have details of it and will be pleased to leave it with you when I can recover it from my hard drive later today. I apologize for that.

I am a professor at the University of Victoria, and my main area of expertise is in protected areas. My textbook is commonly used in universities in Canada on protected areas, and I'm also an active consultant with many international organizations, including the World Bank, the United Nations, the Asian Development Bank, and the IUCN on protected areas.

I have a special interest in marine protected areas. Most of my research programs have involved marine protected areas. I've also lived on both coasts, on the Atlantic coast and the Pacific coast, for over 30 years. And when I say “on”, I mean “on”. I lived on my boat for 10 of those years. So I have some familiarity with oceans.

My brief really is in three sections. The first section is on why we need marine protected areas. The second section is on why we need this particular act. And the third section is on suggested amendments to the act.

Given the background of the committee, my temptation is, for that first section on why we need protected areas, to cut this down very much because I don't think there's any doubt amongst the committee—certainly not amongst the scientific community—that marine protected areas are required if we are to protect our oceans from the kinds of abuse they've had ever since we started using them.

So my first point as to why we need marine protected areas was to be discussion of the crucial role that oceans play in planetary life support systems—how they produce oxygen and sequester carbon, how they moderate our climate, how they produce the rainfall for prairie farmers. There is no scientific dispute that a dead ocean is a dead planet.

My second point under why we need marine protected areas was to point out how critically degraded they have become. Really, only in this last decade have we started to have the technology and science to be able to start to get a grasp on these issues. And the results have been startling.

We found out, for example, that 70% of coral reefs are severely degraded and that over half the mangrove areas of the planet have disappeared. And, of course, in Canada we need no reminding—as we had this morning from Professor Lien—about the social tragedies that have followed from the collapse of some of our most studied stocks on the east coast and also on the west coast. So I think there is no room for argument that our oceans are critically degraded.

• 1215

So why do we need protected areas in order to address this degradation? We have been using protected areas as a form of conservation on the planet for over 130 years. There are now over 44,000 protected areas on the planet. The reason they have become so numerous is simple—they work. It's been clearly shown that there are immense conservation benefits through developing protected area systems. Almost all those protected areas, though, are on the terrestrial side of our planet. Less than 0.5% is saved in the oceans.

There are several reasons for this. Why have we been so slow in the oceans? The first reason was mentioned by Professor Lien this morning. Until recently considerable portions of the ocean were protected through our inability to get to them. That is no longer the case.

Secondly, we didn't know how badly degraded they were. We've always had a perspective that the oceans were so vast there's nothing we could do to harm them. We know now that this is not true.

The third reason why we've been slow to develop marine protected areas is because we weren't sure if they would work. Would they deliver the conservation benefits we thought they would? There is clear scientific consensus now that this is the case. Some of the prime beneficiaries are local fishermen in the areas of marine protected areas.

This morning it was mentioned that there had been a scientific consensus statement on the value of marine protected areas by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

I have some copies of that statement with me if any members would like to see it.

This is a consensus statement between the world's most eminent marine biologists who set up tests all around the world to see what would happen to fisheries if certain areas were declared no-take areas. The results they found were surprising, even to that committee. After only one or two years of protection, for example, they found that population densities were 91% higher. They found that biomass was 192% higher. They found that average organism size was 31% higher. They found that species diversity was 23% higher.

These same results have been duplicated on the coast of British Columbia. We know for sure that fisheries are one of the main beneficiaries if areas are set aside as marine reserves.

This is not to suggest that marine protected areas are a panacea for all our problems on the ocean. What it suggests is that they are part of the jigsaw for rebuilding our oceans. This bill that's being brought forward is an important part of that jigsaw also.

From the second part of my brief I would like to point out what I see to be some of the advantages of this bill and how it complements existing legislation.

As pointed out this morning by the World Wildlife Fund, it is in fact standard international practice to have several pieces of legislation to enact marine conservation. In the U.S. there are five different acts that enact marine conservation. So this is not unusual, because as it was pointed out then, we need different kinds of perspectives to fit these things together.

• 1220

Why is this bill valuable? The first point is that it is the only marine protected system based upon representing our marine and coastal natural heritage. That means we don't just protect areas that are convenient, cheap, or politically favourable, but that we have a scientific system established that will dictate what are the most magnificent areas we need to celebrate Canada's natural history in our coastal waters. I think this is essential for both current and future generations. So it's representative.

Second, a point brought out this morning again by Professor Lien was that Parks Canada and this bill have an explicit mandate for public education. This is one of the major challenges we face. How do we make the farmers on the prairies more aware that they too are crucially dependent on having healthy oceanic ecosystems? Parks Canada is an internationally recognized leading agency in public education and interpretation of natural ecosystems. We could leave this job in no better hands than to have dedicated professionals who have done this terrestrially and can apply that knowledge to oceanic situations.

The question that came up this morning—and I thought it was a very good one—was, how do we get through to the public? Parks Canada has some very innovative ideas about how to do this. I understand one of them is to have an ocean centre, not in Victoria, not in St. John's, but right here in Ontario. So how do we get knowledge out? We go to the people. We try to get people into marine parks, but we also try to go to where the people are and tell them more about our oceans. So the second reason it's important is because of the emphasis on building knowledge amongst the public.

Third, it will lead to the strengthening and diversification of local economies. Whenever Parks Canada designates areas for protection, it always leads to increased tourist visitation. Parks Canada has learned by experience how to manage this tourism. They come at it from a people management point of view. Other agencies do not have that expertise. So it will benefit from having a diversification of economies and also the people with experience in that area.

Fourth, it is explicitly required that the minister consult with various stakeholders in the area, including governments, first nations, and local communities. It's an explicit statement of the act also to have the management advisory committee. No other act has such an explicit statement.

The Chair: Professor Dearden, will you be ready to conclude very soon?

Prof. Philip Dearden: Yes, sir.

I will move very quickly to my amendments. Would that be all right?

The Chair: It's just that we have two other panellists. Perhaps you could just give us the gist of it, because we won't have time.

Prof. Philip Dearden: Okay.

I have seven suggested amendments as to how I think the bill can be strengthened.

The Chair: Once we get your documentation, it will be circulated to the members. So they're sure to have it when we do clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. You don't have to worry about that.

Prof. Philip Dearden: Okay. Thank you.

I will not go through all these suggested amendments. I will pick out a couple. I am a little concerned about the recommendation for zoning in that marine protected areas are multiple-use areas. Therefore, this zoning issue is much more critical than it is with terrestrial protected areas. I am concerned that we are not specific enough in the bill about how to undertake zoning. I have written another sentence that I think specifies the means for zoning in a more precise manner.

• 1225

It also suggests that no less than 25% of each site must be allocated as a preservation zone. That comes from recommendations from international marine bodies where the only failures in marine protected areas have been found where the no-take zones have been too small to be effective. So we have to make sure there is a significant proportion, and 25% is my recommendation.

The second recommendation is that we require not “the minister may” but “the minister must conduct scientific research for monitoring”, because this is essential to good decision-making.

I also endorse the suggestion to prohibit bottom trawling within MCAs.

But in terms of aquaculture, I've suggested that no person shall engage in finfish aquaculture unless it can be proven that the system is contained so that no deleterious impacts on the environment will occur. I think there is good potential for developing sustainable aquaculture systems, and I think if we minimize the environmental effects, then that will suffice.

In summary, I would say that I think this is a very necessary piece of legislation. It would enable us to catch up on our international obligations. As was mentioned this morning, it will need considerable resources to put it into operation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Professor Dearden.

Chief Mercredi, you have the floor.

Mr. Ovide Mercredi (Political Adviser to the National Chief, Assembly of First Nations): Can I ask a procedural question first, Mr. Chairman? What is your quorum?

The Chair: We have quorum right now.

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: What is your quorum? I need the number.

The Chair: There are two quorums: the quorum for the business of the committee is nine, and the quorum for hearings is four.

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: When we first sat down, for the record you were the only representative present from your party besides the alternate or the designate from the minister. The only member present from the opposition was Mr. Hearn of the Conservative Party. If you expect us to take this process seriously, you have to take it seriously. That's why I said to you, Mr. Chairman, that I will not make a submission to this committee when there is nobody present. But I see that since then, after some people made calls, some people have arrived.

We have not had any input on this legislation whatsoever as the Assembly of First Nations. We don't sing the same song as the previous presenter about the strengths of the legislation. We don't see any strengths in the legislation in terms of our perspective as a people.

Right now the government is trying to make us accountable as first nations government. It's not a one-way street, sir. If we're going to be held accountable to be more transparent to our citizens, then the parliamentary committee ought to be transparent in its operations to its own citizens as well.

I take great offence when the official opposition does not show up at an important meeting such as this to hear our representations as aboriginal people. I don't know who is represented now on the opposition side. I see that one other person has arrived. I don't know if they're from the NDP or some other party.

The Chair: Mrs. Gallant represents the official opposition.

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: That's the Alliance.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, in fairness to Her Majesty's loyal opposition, former Chief Ovide Mercredi, Mrs. Gallant was in fact at the back of the room having a coffee and some lunch, and she was listening to the witnesses. Sometimes in committees when you start at 8 in the morning you do take a little break for coffee and a sandwich. So it was out of no disrespect for you. That's the way I saw it.

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: You have your point of view, and I have my observations.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Yes.

• 1230

The Chair: I'll give you time afterwards to finish.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Mercredi, I was called to another committee for witnesses and I tried my very best to get back here to hear exactly and specifically what you had to say.

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: It's not what I have to say that's important; it's what my people have to say who have not been heard yet. By listening to the Assembly of First Nations, you will hear that this committee is not doing its job. You haven't listened to the people you have to talk to.

This bill that's being presented for consideration by Parliament is going to have an immense impact on aboriginal rights and title in British Columbia and the Maritimes. We see it as a major threat to our people's title to marine resources. You have to hear that directly from the people most affected.

I can give you a presentation now that AFN wanted to make; I do so with those objections that I raised.

We don't have much opportunity to influence what happens in this House. The only opportunity we have is to voice our concerns from time to time on legislation. That is all we can do. In the end it's your decision whether you hear us or not. What I'm about to say now has been said before in other standing committees involving our rights as a people with the legislation involving Parks Canada, the so-called champion of sustainable development.

This legislation is very perplexing to me, and I'm not sure what the objective is when it ties the idea of marine reserves to the comprehensive claims policy of the federal government.

Mr. Lincoln knows for a fact that our organization and our leaders across the country have been opposed to that comprehensive claims policy since its inception. We have been opposed to it because it extinguishes our rights as a people; it extinguishes our rights, not recognizes them. Now what I see here in this proposed legislation is a direct reference to the comprehensive claims policy that has been rejected by the Assembly of First Nations from its inception.

That is the cause of a great deal of frustration in terms of the treaty-making process in British Columbia in contemporary time. The reason why many first nations in the Maritimes as well as in British Columbia refuse to come to the negotiating table to deal with aboriginal title is because they don't want to negotiate under the comprehensive claims policy. And yet this proposed bill incorporates that policy as part of the law of this proposed bill.

I don't know who was giving you advice; it may have been representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs.

First of all, on the issue of consultation, you have been advised by your courts many times, on different decisions of the Supreme Court, that when it comes to infringing upon treaty and aboriginal rights, you have a duty to consult with their people. That consultation is not just a frivolous act, it's a serious responsibility. And that's why I took exception at the start of this meeting when very few people were present.

As I said to you earlier, the duty to consult, as stated by the Supreme Court, in some cases means that our consent to legislative measures will be required—our consent.

• 1235

In the same way that you provided for the agreement of the provinces in this bill, you have to seek our agreement as first nations governments to any measures dealing with the objectives of this legislation.

Canada is not that progressive yet. The parliamentarians do not see our people in the same light as they see the provinces. They see us as inferior governments. In fact, they see us as evolving governments. Some see us only as municipal forms of government. And some would prefer we were not governments at all.

So we question why the federal government did not consult with our people before they developed this legislation. The Supreme Court decision should have given the parliamentarians notice that when Parliament makes laws affecting our people, they have a duty to talk to us, and I don't mean just the Assembly of First Nations. The national organization is a political body representing the chiefs across the country.

When it comes to important pieces of legislation like this we cannot accept or reject it. It is our responsibility to advise you as a committee to go and listen to our people in the regions who will be most affected by this legislation.

So at the very least, your standing committee should go to British Columbia and consult with the first nations in the coastal region there. Your committee should go to the maritime provinces to consult with our first nations people there as well, and to all the Indian tribes that surround the Great Lakes, because those waters are also touched by this legislation.

Our submissions in previous sittings of legislative committees within the last two years have been ignored by those committees. The recommendations we made for revisions with respect to the bill involving parks were ignored by the committee. None of the recommendations we made were acted upon. They were merely dismissed.

We have to depend on the Liberal Party, who formed the government, to take their duty seriously in terms of consulting with our people, to take it away from the ivory walls of this Hill and go to see the grassroots people. That's one thing we agree on with the Alliance Party. We believe in the grassroots people.

I don't understand the bill. I looked at it. I tried to understand it, but I can't understand why, when our claim to aboriginal rights is accepted, the acceptance of the government to negotiate with us on those resources triggers a reservation of that area. Am I misreading the legislation?

Mr. Chairman, this is not helpful to us. Simply because we have a territory that we claim, and by virtue of this bill it automatically becomes a reserve for a future conservation area, means that when we start negotiating with your federal negotiators on issues of aboriginal title in British Columbia or in the Maritimes, we will not only be dealing with third party interests of forestry companies, of corporations, and the like, but we will now be dealing with the interests of powerful departments of the Government of Canada, which will have a vested interest to maintain that area as a conservation area for marine preservation.

• 1240

So I can see the negotiations going this way, our people fighting the government to retain their piece of property, so that it's outside the influence of Parks Canada, Environment Canada, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans—three powerful departments of the crown relying on a piece of law that you're about to enact to frustrate our people in the negotiations for their aboriginal title. This law also says, if it's passed, that Canada will have absolute title. And when it's satisfied it has absolute title to that piece of land, it will be then designated as a marine conservation area.

I ask you this question because I don't know the answer to it. It says here that when we conclude negotiations on our land claims, at that time a decision will be made about where that property belongs, schedule 1 or schedule 2 in the bill. Schedule 2 is the reserves, schedule 1 is the conservation areas. And that decision is going to be made by the cabinet.

Say we're successful in keeping 10% of the marine area away from the influence of the future statute, what happens to the rest of the property? Does it always stay a marine conservation area. I don't know the answer. It's not just aboriginal people who are going to be concerned about this piece of legislation once it becomes public, because I'm sure a lot of non-aboriginal people in British Columbia who currently use the marine resources in some capacity, for tourism, fish farming, or commercial fishing, are going to be concerned about the prospect of an aboriginal land claim having the effect of automatically designating an area as a reserve for a conservation area.

We have enough problems with non-aboriginal people over our land claims in British Columbia. We don't need that compounded by this bill—if I read it correctly, and I may be wrong. As I say, I find it perplexing, I don't understand it, and I hope I'm wrong. If you read subclause 4(1) it says:

Marine conservation areas are established in accordance with this Act for the purpose of protecting and conserving representative marine areas for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada and the world.

How about aboriginal people, before we put the world in?

Then it says in subclause 4(2):

Reserves for marine conservation areas are established in accordance with this Act for the purpose referred to in subsection (1) when an area or a portion of an area is subject to a claim by aboriginal people that has been accepted for negotiation by the Government of Canada as a comprehensive land claim.

We don't even get to decide prior to negotiations whether that should be designated as a reserve or whether it should be designated as a conservation area. It's decided beforehand by the legislation. I don't know if I'm reading too much into it.

What bothers me also is that the management and use of that property will be controlled by bureaucrats, conservation officers and the like, who will manage that property with nice-sounding words, saying, “future generations” and so on, but the real essence of it is that they can divide it into two zones.

• 1245

First of all, you have the idea of an area reserved for what you call a marine conservation area, and then you have the concept of the marine conservation area. The marine conservation area automatically falls into the four corners of this bill. The reserved conservation area designates that land for that purpose. You think that's all it should do, but the bill does more than that. It says the reserved area can also be managed like the marine conservation area and divided into two zones. One is a zone where people can continue to use and occupy the marine area, and the other one is where they will be prohibited from doing anything at all. So it's a permissive system. It'll be controlled by way of permits issued by bureaucrats who work for the Government of Canada.

However, from what I can see from the bill—and I may call these saving graces; I don't know—there is a provision there that says that provinces, where their property's affected—I guess British Columbia and the maritime provinces, maybe the Government of Ontario in relation to the Great Lakes—will have a say in the management of that area by negotiated agreements with the federal government. But there's no such protection for us. There's no requirement on the part of the federal government to have agreements with us. All it says is that you have a duty to come and talk to us, but there's no equivalent requirement that you need agreements with us for the management of the reserved conservation area—we'll call it the marine park. Essentially, what you're doing, anyway, is creating parks in the water.

We have concerns also about the regulations and the power the government is giving itself to regulate treaty and aboriginal rights by regulations—to use the regulations as a way of deciding whether or not our people will have the capacity to continue to use those resources as before, even whether or not they can occupy any of the shores of that water park.

We have a lot of experience with land parks, and in the previous standing committee many of our chiefs came to explode the myth that Parks Canada treats our people well. They came here to tell you very clearly that Parks Canada does not treat our people well and that we have no access to our treaty and aboriginal rights whenever parks are established, which is why my people in my community of Grand Rapids are opposed to the idea of a park in Long Point. It's a traditional area that we've used for many years, but now the government wants to designate it as a land park for tourism.

We fear this legislation for the same reasons, because we have no reason to believe Parks Canada is going to be good to us when this bill becomes law. We're not opposed to all those high-sounding principles of the conservation of species, the preservation of the ecology, and the proper management of the resources. We're not opposed to that—absolutely not. We have to find another way of doing work on this idea of how we protect marine resources. This bill is too much of the old style, where you make a law, you make a prohibition, you impose fines, and you enforce it.

• 1250

What I liked about the SARA approach, which is the endangered species act that the Minister of the Environment is proposing and that's in the House now, is the idea that it was built on the notion of cooperation.

How do we protect endangered species through cooperation? It's by getting all governments to agree to the same set of principles and the same goals, and getting all governments to try to work together to achieve that objective.

This legislation here does not recognize first nations governments. We would be outside looking in when Parks Canada sits down with Environment Canada and DFO to decide what's going to happen with the marine ecosystems where we live as first nations. We'll be on the outside looking in.

There will be one other party involved, but they won't be on the outside looking in. That will be the province of British Columbia, or the provinces in other regions of Canada, because you can't push them around in the same way that first nations and other aboriginal groups can be pushed around by government.

I'm only a messenger. I'm not a leader. My advice to you, Mr. Chairman, is go see our people. Go see them; hear them directly.

I have here a letter from the Aboriginal Fisheries Commission because I invited them to join us here. I also invited the Atlantic Policy Congress because I was afraid this is the only time you'll talk to us, but they couldn't make it on short notice.

Neither could the Aboriginal Fisheries Commission, but I want to read their letter to you, and then I'll conclude my comments:

It is unfortunate that we could not make a presentation to your committee in person. The invitation came with very little notice, and the date coincided with our pre-season assembly. Therefore, the executive and the staff aren't able to attend.

This is from the B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission. It's chaired by Arnie Narcisse.

The issue of marine conservation lies in the heart of our organization and in the hearts of the first nations people in British Columbia.

First nations have always practised conservation. Our very existence as nations and peoples depends on the continued existence of the marine ecosystems. We would not exist without the seas and aquatic resources that were once bountiful on this coast.

In your rush to protect some of the last remaining areas on the coast, you must consider and respect our place in the environment.

Many of you who espouse the virtues of biodiversity seem to overlook the place that our peoples and our cultures have in the fabric of life. We have lived as part of these same areas or ecosystems that you are now trying to protect since time immemorial. Therefore, you must also protect our place in those areas and ecosystems.

Also, many of the areas being considered for protection represent some of our last opportunities to regain self-reliance. Protection of these areas is now necessary only because your cultures try to consume and develop everything that is in sight. Now that there is only a little bit left, you decide to protect it.

First nations must not be made to suffer the burden of conservation, when the system of overuse and over-harvest was not of our making.

• 1255

The act must recognize the use of these areas by our people not only for sustenance and cultural uses, but also for the economy our communities desperately need. If we are to bear the brunt of conservation, we must be compensated fully and fairly.

As every potential marine conservation area is in some first nations territory, our governments must be fully engaged in their management. Co-management of these areas is essential to the success of any programs that may be used to implement the act. That's why you have to go see our first nations leaders who will be impacted by this proposed bill. I recommend that you go to British Columbia, to the Maritimes, and to the Great Lakes area to allow our people to make submissions to your committee. That is, in effect, the essence of my presentation.

I thank you for your time.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Mercredi.

Mr. Michael d'Eça.

Mr. Michael d'Eça (Legal Counsel, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ovide.

I am legal counsel to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. I come from a slightly different but I think complementary perspective to Mr. Mercredi's. My client operates within a land claims agreement that has already been settled. We'll refer to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board today as the NWMB.

The NWMB as well only received word of this meeting quite recently. Last week the clerk phoned up and asked if we'd like to appear. We definitely did want to, but there was a scramble to get prepared. Because of that, we weren't able to get submissions to you ahead of time to have them translated.

I do have copies of the NWMB's submissions with me, in English only. I'd be happy to either pass them around the table right now or give them to you afterwards. I certainly apologize for no translation, but that was because of the time constraints that were placed on us.

The Chair: We will get it translated and then distribute it.

Mr. Michael d'Eça: All right.

I have a couple of preliminary comments about the process in developing this act. Mr. Mercredi referred to the process of the Species at Risk Act. The NWMB certainly recommends that process, which has its problems but certainly has raised the bar in terms of the development of legislation that affects aboriginal peoples. Other departments should be urged, and I hope this committee could do so with the Department of Canadian Heritage, to follow that kind of process in the future in developing such legislation.

There are six recommendations within our submissions. I'm not going to go through all of them today. I'll try to keep within my time. I'll concentrate on three or four, but certainly urge the committee to carefully consider each and every one of the board's suggestions.

I'll give a short description of the NWMB, its jurisdiction, and so on. It's an institution of public government, an independent administrative board established by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. That, of course, is a land claims agreement within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act.

When any inconsistency or conflict between any federal, territorial, or local government law in a land claims agreement takes place, the constitutionally protected land claim will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency of the conflict. It's an important preliminary consideration when looking at this bill.

The NWMB itself is the main instrument of wildlife management and the main regulator of access to wildlife in the Nunavut settlement area. That's an immense area. It spans about 2 million square kilometres. It includes the marine areas of the Arctic Archipelago and the 12-mile territorial sea adjacent to Nunavut. It contains approximately 43% of Canada's ocean coastline.

Within its extensive wildlife management jurisdiction, the NWMB has exclusive decision-making authority with respect to establishing, modifying, or removing quotas, and all other restrictions on wildlife harvesting in what's known as the Nunavut settlement area, including within conservation areas.

It also has the authority to approve the establishment, disestablishment, and changes to boundaries of conservation areas, and to approve plans for the management and protection of particular wildlife and wildlife habitat within conservation areas. Its decision-making authority is subject to the minister's authority to accept, reject, or vary a board decision in accordance with the terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

• 1300

In addition to the NWMB's jurisdiction, the Inuit exercise a number of constitutionally protected rights in marine conservation areas within the Nunavut area. In fact, the land claim itself devotes an entire article to that—article 9, entitled “Conservation Areas”. That article sets out important directions that have a direct application to Bill C-10, some of which I'll be referring to in my remarks today.

With that introduction, I'll proceed to offer some recommendations aimed at strengthening and clarifying the bill for consideration by this committee.

The first recommendation I want to talk about is one that was actually raised before the committee back when we had Bill C-48 in 1999. What the board is asking the committee to do is to return the wording of the non-derogation clause in subclause 2(2) of the bill to the traditional wording that has been in place in federal statutes since 1985.

As I said, when the board first appeared before this committee in the winter of 1999, the bill had no non-derogation clause and the NWMB recommended the inclusion of a clause, but with the wording that had been present in practically every federal statute containing a non-derogation clause for at least the previous 15 years. This committee did decide to include a clause in Bill C-10, but it has new wording imposed by the Department of Justice but opposed by Canadian aboriginal organizations and wildlife management boards.

The department decided, starting around 1998, that the standard wording in place for non-derogation clauses over many years was no longer acceptable to it. While the NWMB may disagree with the justice department in its analysis, it doesn't dispute the right of the department to critically review a statutory provision as fundamentally important to both the crown and aboriginal peoples as an aboriginal non-derogation clause.

The problem, which the NWMB finds entirely unacceptable, is that having completed its analysis in total isolation from aboriginal peoples or wildlife management boards, the department then unilaterally deleted the old clause, which, by the way, has never been litigated in the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeal, or the Supreme Court of Canada, and they inserted this new one. The department did this in the absence of any consultation, any explanation, or any dialogue with the Inuit, with other aboriginal peoples, or with wildlife management boards.

The crux of the NWMB's argument is simple and straightforward. In light of the crown's fiduciary responsibilities toward aboriginal peoples, it is essential that a proposed modification to a standard statutory provision affecting aboriginal treaty and land claims rights holders first be subject to a consultation process with those rights holders. This is so because the crown's strong fiduciary obligation toward aboriginal peoples includes the duty to consult when crown actions may affect aboriginal peoples—and Mr. Mercredi talked a little bit about the grounding of that in the law.

Accordingly, the NWMB's recommendation is that the traditional non-derogation clause should be included in Bill C-5. This committee may also wish to recommend that in any other initiative by the Department of Justice—and it has lots of initiatives doing the same thing, with the Species at Risk Act and a number of acts in which it's pursuing this wording—if it wishes to modify the clause in the future in statutes affecting aboriginal treaty and land claims rights holders, that it first be preceded by consultations with aboriginal peoples and wildlife management boards. I think you can be confident that you will find a corresponding willingness to participate in those consultations.

I'll turn to another recommendation within the six that the board has prepared. It has to do with paragraph 12(b) of the bill. That paragraph states:

12. Except as permitted by this Act or the regulations,

(b) no person shall use or occupy public lands in a marine conservation area.

As presently written, paragraph 12(b) is inconsistent, in fact in conflict with the terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, which permits the Inuit to exercise various rights in conservation areas. For example, the Inuit may continue to occupy outpost camps on crown lands located in conservation areas, subject to the terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. They also have the free and unrestricted right of access, for the purpose of harvesting, to lands, water, and marine areas within conservation areas, again subject to the terms of the land claim. In addition, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement authorizes the NWMB to regulate Inuit harvesting in the conservation areas.

• 1305

Accordingly, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act cannot impose a paragraph 12(b) prohibition with only the two exceptions stated, that is, expressed permission by the act or expressed permission by the regulations. The NWMB recommends that paragraph 12(b) be modified. It's not a wholesale throwing out of the old provision. It would read along these lines:

Subject to the terms of applicable land claims agreements, unless permitted by this act or the regulations...no person shall use or occupy public lands in a marine conservation area.

Mr. Chairman, you can certainly let me know if I am going over my time, but I have two more recommendations I'd like to quickly run through with you.

The next one deals with clause 15 of the bill. The point I want to make is quite similar to the last one I just made. Clause 15 of the bill states:

To the extent authorized by the regulations, the superintendent of a marine conservation area may issue, amend, suspend and revoke permits and other authorizing instruments for activities in the marine conservation area.

Now, many activities in a marine conservation that is wholly or partially within an area governed by a land claims agreement are permitted or otherwise authorized through processes set out in the land claim itself. I know the last time we appeared before the committee, we brought along a little map that showed the land claims areas in Canada, either the ones that are in force now or that soon will be. In fact, the entire coast of Canada is or will be subject to land claims agreements—pretty well the entire coast.

So within the Nunavut settlement area, the NWMB decides the species and the amount of wildlife that may be harvested and where, when, and by what means that wildlife may be harvested. In addition, as I mentioned a few moments ago, the land claim permits Inuit to exercise various rights in marine conservation areas. Therefore, it's necessary to signal in the act that the superintendent's authority to issue permits and other authorizing instruments is subject to the terms of applicable land claims agreements. Again, our suggested language easily accomplishes this goal. It would say:

To the extent authorized by the regulations and, in land claims areas, by the terms of applicable land claims agreements, the superintendent of a marine conservation area may issue amend, suspend and revoke permits and other authorizing instruments for activities in the marine conservation area.

I'm coming to the close, Mr. Chairman. But I'd like to talk about one other recommendation, and it has to do with subclause 16(1). That's an important provision that sets out the cabinet's authority to make regulations, and I quote, “consistent with international law, for the control and management of any or all marine conservation areas.” Many aspects of the control and management of marine conservation areas are governed by the terms of land claims agreements, where those marine conservation areas are wholly or partially located within land claims areas.

Pursuant to several provisions contained in articles 8, 9, and 15 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement—and when you get our submissions you'll see we have all of those explicitly set out for your review—the management and control of marine conservation areas within and even partially beyond the Nunavut settlement area must be shared with the Inuit.

In addition, a number of the enumerated items in subclause 16(1) fall within the jurisdiction of land claims bodies, such as the NWMB. For instance, regulations under paragraph 16(1)(c), “for the management and control of renewable resource harvesting activities”, or regulations under paragraph 16(1)(e) “restricting or prohibiting activities”, such as harvesting, within the Nunavut settlement area, could only be made following a decision or decisions by the NWMB.

Therefore, the board recommends that the committee clarify subclause 16(1) by explicitly indicating in the wording of the provision that the regulations must not only be consistent with international law, but also with the terms of applicable land claims agreements.

• 1310

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the NWMB supports the eventual enactment of an act with respect to marine conservation areas. However, I hope I've been able to demonstrate that Bill C-10, as presently drafted, still lacks a full recognition of the application of land claims agreements and of the jurisdiction of land claims bodies in a number of critical areas addressed by the proposed legislation.

I also want to point out that Mr. Mercredi has also raised serious concerns on behalf of first nations, most of whom do not yet have land claims agreements.

The board would like to thank the standing committee for this opportunity and for the time that you will spend in considering the recommendations. If any of the members have questions with respect to our position, I'd be happy to try to answer them.

Thank you.

The Chair: We'll open the floor to questions.

Ms. Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Yes. My first question is directed to Mr. Mercredi.

First of all, prior to your arrival, it was suggested by the official opposition that we go to the B.C. coastal communities to have hearings. But apparently it's not within the timeframe of the standing committee.

When the ministry was in to brief the committee on this bill, I asked them about the derogation of the land claims. It was explained to me that between Bill C-8 and Bill C-10, all the concerns had been taken care of.

First of all, how did you find out about this hearing? Were you invited, or did you just follow it in the news? Were you involved in the previous ones referred to? Were you called as a witness for Bill C-8?

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: The answer is as follows about notice of this process. The first time the Assembly of First Nations became aware of the bill was last week. I believe it was last week. I had a call from the clerk of the House, who wanted to know if the Assembly of First Nations would be prepared to make a presentation.

At that time, I indicated that it would be ideal to have the people affected by the bill consulted and that I would make the effort to try to get something to this table. I wasn't sure anybody from the AFN would be ready to make the submission that quickly.

The fact that I am here and not one of their elected leaders should say something to you as well. We didn't have enough time to involve our leaders to come to talk to you, because ideally our leaders should be talking to leaders. I'm a bureaucrat now. I'm a messenger here.

The other thing is, with respect to the previous bill, now re-resurrected here, we didn't make any presentations apparently. There's no corporate memory that we made any representations.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So this is the first time the first nations have had any input whatsoever into this legislation.

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: This is why I expressed the frustration that I did express, because this is the very first time. And this is why I put so much emphasis on the duty to consult and why this committee needs to go to see the people most affected by this bill.

My community is not going to be affected. I live in the prairie provinces. I'm from Manitoba and my people live in Lake Winnipeg. There's nothing here that's going to frighten me in that community. But people living on Vancouver Island or in any of the communities on the coast—white or native communities—should be consulted about this bill.

The idea of marine resources shouldn't be left to government. This idea of top-down is old history. What I'm trying to say to you is it doesn't work. It has never worked and it's never going to work. But this bill does not recognize local democracy. It does not involve the grassroots people or any of the governments at the community level. It just imposes a bureaucracy on a designated area. It will be the same with Parks Canada making decisions, or DFO making decisions, or Environment Canada making decisions. It should be left to the people who live in that region.

• 1315

The whole concept of management of these conservation areas.... Let's deal with the idea of the marine conservation area. That's a good idea. I'm not saying it's a bad idea; I say it's a good idea but not the way it's being proposed. Many studies have been done by non-governmental organizations to try to influence the thinking within government that they should recognize the democratic right of people to participate in decisions that affect their livelihood. Having an advisory committee to the minister doesn't cut the mustard. So what if there's one person in Canada who advises the minister, or three or four. But when a decision is made affecting the livelihood of people by government, there is an immediate economic impact on families, communities, and regions. As aboriginal people, this is what we're trying to say, because it has an economic impact on us as well. It's not that we're protecting rights for the sake of protecting rights; we're trying to maintain a livelihood.

These decisions cannot be left to a superintendent without some involvement of people in some kind of democratic role. Co-management is something the government now accepts that comes from the Inuit in terms of their style of government. It comes from some of our people too, but most of our people say self-management of resources. Co-management of resources is a concept that has been promoted by NGOs for some time. They have been trying to convince government that the best way to deal with the conservation of resources is to involve people who have to make that difficult decision. There's an absence of that kind of involvement of people in this legislation.

What troubles me more seriously is the whole notion that simply because we're involved in land claims, as soon as our land claim is accepted, something is called a reservation area. Where's the logic behind that? Why is that there? I don't know, because we didn't propose it. It didn't come from us. I don't know what the intent is. That's why I asked the question, what is the intent behind that concept? The definition of reserve means “a national marine conservation area reserve of Canada named and described in Schedule 2.”

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Part of the bill, Mr. Mercredi, is that advisory committees in the identified communities will be struck, involving members directly involved in business, and other organizations, and individuals, if necessary. What problems do you see in that process?

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: I don't see it that way. What I see here in clause 11 is an advisory committee. And what I read on the plane coming from Winnipeg this morning, while trying to make it in time for this meeting, is that the minister could establish an advisory committee on a marine conservation area, but it doesn't say who is going to be on that committee. It could be good Liberals or good Alliance members. Who knows? But there are no criteria and there is no designation for aboriginal people.

In the SARA legislation, because we were involved to some extent in influencing that bill, you will see that when it comes to our representatives, they will be selected by our people, but we will also have representation on committees. That's the difference. There is no recognition of our participation in identifying members for such committees. And there's no guarantee that there will be aboriginal people on any of these advisory committees established by the minister.

• 1320

You could have advisory committees, of course, but for us to be comfortable, it would say “and aboriginal representatives”, just like the SARA bill says when it comes to certain institutions that make important decisions, such as COSEWIC; there will be a committee made up of aboriginal people who will provide the guidance with respect to traditional knowledge to the scientists who are going to be involved in the process of listing endangered species.

The Chair: Madam Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you. I would like to follow up, Mr. Mercredi, on what you're saying. Going back to your question on the reserves, I think that's a good question, but does that automatically trigger? My understanding is that a reserve would not be triggered in the same way a marine conservation area cannot be triggered, unless there's a consultation and the group agrees to it.

So I certainly don't think it was the intent of subclause 6(2) that a reserve would automatically be triggered at the time there's a land claim—in the same way, a marine conservation area can't be triggered before we go through all the steps. Perhaps we can look at seeing how to make that, the actual intent, much more clear. I see why you question that. But I thought that wasn't the intent.

Do you have a copy of the bill, Mr. Mercredi? Clause 10 talks about the consultations. I know you said at the beginning consultations should be improved. Is there any way we can improve on this? It talks about affected coastal communities and aboriginal organizations. Is there any way we could improve on that to satisfy you? Perhaps putting in coastal and aboriginal communities would assist you.

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: It's the minimum. It's the very minimum to say you will be consulted. The point I made is that people affected by decisions of government should not just be consulted, they should have some decision-making capacity. Do you know what I'm saying?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes.

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: When it comes to our rights as a people, for example, to treaty and aboriginal rights, if there's going to be a need for conservation measures, I'm sure it will be in our self-interest to go for conservation measures, but we should be part of the decision-making process. We shouldn't just be consulted by some bureaucrat who comes to see us and then writes his report and the decision is made in Ottawa, or some federal department.

Our people have a right to self-government. The Liberal government said we have self-government. So behave as if we do in your legislation, because you're not behaving that way in your legislation.

I wanted to go back to what is a sore spot here, a sore point, which is this. Why should our territory as aboriginal people trigger the idea of a reserve simply because there's an acceptance in negotiations? It shouldn't.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: No, it shouldn't. I don't believe that—

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: Why is that concept part of this bill? There's another provision here that caused me to stir a little bit on the plane. It was this idea that when there's a settlement of the comprehensive claim—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Sorry, what section?

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: Subclause 6(2), “Settlement of comprehensive land claims”. It says when a claim described in the above is settled there are two things that will happen. One is schedule 2 will be amended. What I'm saying to you is why is there a need for schedule 2? Isn't the objective to set up a marine conservation area? Shouldn't you go to our people who have a claim to that area to ask them if we should have a marine conservation area, instead of saying to us, by your law, as soon as we accept your negotiations it will be a marine conservation area, category 2?

• 1325

You give it further recognition in paragraph 6(2)(b). It says:

if the settlement provides that the reserve or part of it is to become a marine conservation area or part of one,

—then schedule 1 will reflect that. That, to me, is the fundamental issue here.

The Chair: Chief Mercredi, I think we know each other and you know how much respect I've got for the first nations and their rights. I wanted to find out how we can reflect your concerns. You've got to look at the first section there and the interpretations. For aboriginal rights it says:

For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act.

This is the basic framework. Then when you get to subclause 4(2), it says:

Reserves...are established in accordance with this Act for the purpose...when an area or a portion of an area is subject to a claim by aboriginal people that has been accepted for negotiation...as a comprehensive land claim.

If you look at clause 10, I think there perhaps the bill should be much more direct. Instead of saying “The Minister shall provide opportunities”, I don't know why it doesn't say that the minister shall consult, which would impose an onus on the minister to consult. Without the consultation taking place, there would be no establishment possible, because the minister has to consult. Then, when you look at—and I think regulations have to be taken in their overall context—clause 6 or 16, again it says the Governor in Council”, but that says “may”, after the minister has consulted with affected aboriginal organizations. There's the reference, again, to section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.

My reading of the bill, because of the hearings that took place on Bill C-48.... It was proven by the case of Newfoundland, where people being consulted there disagreed with the formation of a marine conservation area, and it didn't proceed because obviously the consultation proved negative. If there is a prior condition for consultation, obviously the consultation must be positive for the area to be formed, otherwise it doesn't happen. I think, looking at the reserve question, if there were a negotiation that concluded that all the various parties were agreeable to a marine conservation area, is there not, on the contrary, some form of saying, well, you can't do that, we're going to reserve the part that's being negotiated for a claim, in other words, looking at it from the point of view of protection, rather than the other way? Even then, I don't think that reserve can be formed without consultation, the way I read it.

Maybe this is the kind of thing we should discuss further and perhaps come to some suggestions as to whether to tighten it.

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: I think your interpretation is possible, just as my interpretation is possible, so we have a problem here of clarity. What is the real intent? That's why I asked you, what is the real intent of this legislation?

• 1330

I expressed the trouble you're going to face with first nations in British Columbia and the Maritimes when you start imposing preconditions on their territory, on their own lands, simply because acceptance for negotiations shouldn't trigger that area as a reserve for marine conservation; it shouldn't be automatic. If that's not the intent, then we should clarify that. That should be made very clear in the bill.

It may be that the government and the first nations will have a common objective with respect to marine conservation. The point I'm making is that you have a duty to come and talk to us about that. That's where the duty to consult comes from, right? But my submission to you is that what you will hear from our leaders and our governments is that it's not just that you should come and see us, but you have to obtain our agreement before you can proceed with a designated area on our traditional territories. That's what you'll hear. This bill doesn't quite get there with respect to the right of our people to consent to the designated area. I think it will be critical to reflect that.

That's why I mentioned earlier that you don't need a two-by-four, you need cooperation to make this work, and you don't obtain cooperation through prohibitions and heavy fines and enforcement, as in Burnt Church. You do it through dialogue and agreement between governments. The bill, to some extent, recognizes that for provincial governments. You have to obtain their agreement in certain parts where their jurisdiction is affected. But the same respect is not presented to the Inuit or first nations governments. So I think that needs to be looked at as well.

My proposal is this. The Métis Nation is not present, neither are the Native Women's Association and the other aboriginal groups that we normally share the table with. It might be beneficial for the committee to try again to meet with the designated representatives. If you're not going to go to the regions, as recommended—and that's supported by the opposition—the minimum you can do is meet with our leaders one more time to sort out these details. Prior to that, as my colleague suggested, some work could be done at the technical level to try to improve on the wording. I'll let him speak to that.

Mr. Michael d'Eça: Mr. Chairman, when the Inuit appeared before the standing committee for the Oceans Act in 1996, there were some fundamental concerns that the Inuit had, and the chairperson of that committee, Mr. MacDonald I think it was, simply directed the department to sit down with the aboriginal organizations or aboriginal representatives to try to work out an arrangement that was mutually acceptable and to report back to the committee. In fact, that is what did happen in that case. Everybody came away relatively satisfied, reported to the committee, and the committee went ahead with its business. So that's another possibility you may want to consider.

The Chair: Okay.

Chief Mercredi, just to put the record straight, so that there's no equivocation, the official opposition was given the latitude to call anybody it wanted. We sent a memo to all members of the committee inviting them to give suggestions about anybody who wanted to appear on March 12. I received a letter from Mr. Andy Burton of the Canadian Alliance on May 28 saying we weren't consulting the people in the coastal communities and we should travel there. I don't know what they were doing between March 12 and May 28, because Mr. Burton himself was the initiator of a hoist motion in the House. This bill has been talked about for weeks now. On May 28 he sends me a long list of 28 organizations he wants us to hear. It's certainly not for lack of wanting to hear anybody who wants to be heard, I can assure you.

• 1335

But I read you loud and clear about your messages, and, Mr. d'Eça, we'll certainly take it into account because I think these are very important issues.

Ms. Bulte, have you completed your questions?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: No. I had another question to Professor Dearden, if I may. It's just a quick one.

Just going back, Professor Dearden, you talked about international obligations. Again, I know I asked this question earlier this morning, but can you elaborate more on those international obligations, because this morning...?

Professor Philip Dearden: Professor Lien did.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes, he did. Professor Lien did say a few things, but I was wondering.... He talked about the Biodiversity Convention and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. I was just wondering if there was anything else, aside from that. Perhaps you can just give me a little.... I'm not familiar with the Biodiversity Convention, and perhaps you could highlight what was in it with respect to the protected areas.

Professor Philip Dearden: The Biodiversity Convention does obligate the parties to develop protected area systems, both terrestrially and in the marine environment, and it does obligate parties to define endangered species, protect biodiversity—those kinds of things. Since Canada was an early and enthusiastic signatory to that convention, it's certainly appropriate that we try to catch up in our marine areas.

The IUCN, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which I've worked with a fair amount, have put together a best-practices guideline for marine protected areas. This does contain within it all the recommendations that have come to the general assemblies of the World Conservation Union, which is the largest conservation grouping in the world. Canada is a member. All major countries are members. They have a chapter here on legislation to make sure how consistent national legislation is. I've been checking for consistency, and I find our legislation quite consistent with international practice.

I would beg the chair's permission just to say a word about this reserve question, if I may. It confused me as well. I think it's a very good question, and I can see the misunderstanding here. I think that in subclause 4(2), where it says, “Reserves for marine conservation areas”...I think they've got the word “reserves” in the wrong place. It should say “marine conservation area reserves”, and that is to take it from the National Parks Act, where we distinguish between national parks and national park reserves.

The national park reserves are established so as not to prejudice any future land claim agreements within those reserves. I think the intent is exactly the same here—to say that, even if this goes forward, it will never be allowed to prejudice land claim agreements. I think that is a confusing issue, and I think it needs to be reworded. But I am sure that is the intent of the legislation.

If I may have one other word on consultation, I have attended many consultations on the B.C. coast on this act since 1984, when I attended the first one. We've been to coastal communities. Parks Canada have held open houses in coastal communities up and down the coast. There has been a lot of consultation in those communities, but sooner or later it has to be brought together, and governments have to make decisions about how to proceed. I think this act is very consultative. I think it is a new way of making protected area legislation, and I think it is something we can get cooperation and agreement through.

The Chair: Mr. Hearn.

Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps it's too bad that Mr. Mercredi wasn't here this morning because some of what you raised we raised at the time. Dr. Lien, who was here from Memorial University of Newfoundland, talked about the failed experiment a couple of years ago in Newfoundland that you well know, I'm sure. But he also talked about some measures that are taking place right now, which are really doing some of what you will want to do under a protected zone, but are being done slowly, individually, and in direct consultation with the local people involved—at their wish, in fact, because they've learned from the complete collapse of our fishery in that area.

• 1340

I represent an area made up of dozens of small communities, all directly dependent on the ocean and its environment. So we know full well the need to preserve and protect. But although we have that dream, that hope, that vision, we also realize that we must live in today and make the best use of what we have.

In terms of consultation at the local level, I don't think it matters whether it concerns an aboriginal group or the local fisherpersons—local support, interest, and input have to be there for the development of any policy. That doesn't just mean that we say, “Yes, we agree”, and then you go ahead and manage as you wish. No, the hands-on approach to authority has to be there, or it's not going to succeed.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, I've talked to some of the individuals who are here observing, and we basically talked about the same thing. We have a number of initiatives throughout the country where developments are taking place in the context of preserving our environment. Perhaps the initiative is taken by the government, but it's picked up at the local level and managed and directed by local groups. That makes so much difference.

As I mentioned, we are probably onto something good here. But we could kill what we're trying to do if we use a heavy-handed, top-down approach. There has to be a buy-in locally.

Those of us who are close to these things understand, and those who are not, don't understand. And when you are afraid of something, or you don't know about it, you tend to reject it. You know, once someone says, “I'm from government, and I'm here to solve all your problems”—that's an invitation to slam the door.

So I fully agree with what I'm hearing here: even though we have people who are maybe on entirely different sides, we all want the same thing. But I guess we have to bring in different approaches to make sure we can get it.

Basically we have two groups, one operating under a lands claim agreement, the other not. So I'll just ask the question: if the proper agreements were in place, Mr. Mercredi, would some of your concerns be taken care of? Is that a problem we're facing here?

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: The problem I'm trying to impress upon this committee is that should you ever go to British Columbia or the Maritimes, you will hear representations from the first nations that when they choose to negotiate with Canada, they don't want to do so under the comprehensive claims policy, which this bill adopts. That's one issue.

The other issue you'll hear from them is that when it comes to marine conservation, they may agree with this objective. My point is that I doubt very much they will kowtow to the process of negotiation on their land claim. This bill gives them no option. It's decided for them. That's one interpretation of that provision.

On the other hand, if they did want to do that, it should be a government-to-government decision. That's the point I'm making. And they may well want to do that. If our friend here from the academic community is correct in his altruistic view about the intent of government, maybe your people would accept some of those provisions. Our experience with government is different. We never approach any legislation coming from Canada with any expectation of altruism. We always say, “Look out, something's up.”

What I'm saying to you is that you're not starting from a position of trust. So if you're going to try to reach certain objectives that are honourable, that our people share, the way to achieve them is the way suggested by Mr. Hearn here, which is that people have to buy into it. The first nations have to buy into it as a group.

• 1345

On this bill here, I really think the Alliance is...you should listen to them in terms of talking and listening to people. Maybe you should extend the committee. Like I said, I'm not accepting or rejecting this, but it doesn't mean you won't get letters after this presentation from first nations in B.C. and the Maritimes rejecting it on the basis of my report.

In SARA, Michael and I were both involved in the legal team that allowed some input from the Inuit, the Métis, and the first nations people in the drafting of that legislation. We were not in a drafting committee room. We weren't totally satisfied with the process because we had an agent, a federal bureaucrat, who would go to the drafting room and take our concerns to the drafters who were drafting the SARA bill.

But if you have an opportunity to review the SARA bill, you will see that because of our involvement in that legislation, that legislation is more enlightened than this one. Now we didn't achieve everything, but what we didn't achieve we agreed we would defer to a political accord, because the whole essence of that legislation is cooperation. The political accord would be government to government so that when implementation takes place under SARA it will be guided by what will be in the political accord that will be signed by our leaders and the Government of Canada. That's still under negotiation, but we're very optimistic that it will be done.

On this bill, we never had the opportunity to get to first base in terms of being worried or expressing any opinions about this word or that word, or the reflection of it, or what it looks like, whatever. I think it would be useful if you were to instruct someone—I don't know whom you'd instruct—to sit down with us so that we can improve on this bill. I think that's the message I want to leave with you. We started a little bit on the wrong foot this morning, but the goal is to improve the bill so that it respects our people.

I've listened to many aboriginal elders across the country, as have you, Mr. Lincoln, and they put conservation first. They always put it first. I think the goal here is a goal that we share, but we have to be comfortable with the bill.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner, followed by Mr. Spencer. You have ten minutes.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I have just two quick questions, and the first is to Mr. Dearden.

With respect to...I think it was your eighth proposed amendment with regard to the finfish aquaculture, you talked about some particular criteria or safeguards that you would like to see put forward. If you could further develop that particular amendment...and I'll throw the other one out as well.

This may be somewhat simplistic or naive, but it's to Mr. Mercredi. When Parks Canada decides to embark on a park development initiative, even terrestrial, for example, and the one that you referred to in your own backyard.... When it involves traditional lands, is there a restriction of access or a restriction of activity? I guess the question should be: does Parks Canada have an instrument to involve the first nations community, or is there a protocol, or is there nothing as refined as that? If Mr. Dearden could answer first, then it's to you, Mr. Mercredi.

• 1350

Prof. Philip Dearden: There is very strong scientific evidence that finfish aquaculture is deleterious to the environment and therefore should not be allowed in an area that is specifically set aside to try to protect the environment. On the other hand, these are multiple-use areas. In most of the areas they will allow fishing and those kinds of activities to go on. There is the potential for finfish aquaculture to move to totally contained systems that can minimize those deleterious environmental effects.

So it would be advantageous if we could encourage those kinds of improvements to take place, and if those do take place, then that would not be inconsistent with a conservation zone in a marine conservation area.

Mr. Ovide Mercredi: I don't think there's any one response, because government is a chameleon, right? It doesn't always do the same thing. Parks Canada operates that way too. When they work with our people, the initiatives might come from us or they might come from them. On occasion, they are forced to deal with us, because issues come to the surface, like hunting or harvesting rights in the park, access to the park, or even something as basic as jobs for our people in the park, equity in terms of employment.

In a previous submission to a standing committee on a bill considering the parks legislation, a number of chiefs came to make a presentation to a standing committee. They were talking about Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba and the importance of having the senior people in a park, the power in a park dealing with them on issues that were very important to them and having that dialogue going.

Initiatives like that do take place and Parks Canada has a little aboriginal secretariat. There's some evidence of some sensitivity to the issues, but on that same standing committee, my chief came here to talk to the government about saying no to the proposed park in Long Point.

That's because of a fear of what might happen in terms of access to the land for uses that we have maintained over the years, and that is, hunting, fishing, gathering of berries and medicines, and so on. The fear is that once it's a park the tourists will come from Winnipeg. Fairly soon we'll be having these tourist sites all over the place, cottages and the like, and our people will be excluded in the future. In 10 or 15 years from now they'll have no access to their land, so they came to say no.

The answer is that there is no protocol, though, between the aboriginal people and Parks Canada. The lesson that governments are slowly learning—and I don't know why it took the Liberal government so long, the Conservatives learned this lesson already when they were in power—is that our people should be involved in federal-provincial relations meetings as a matter of course, because they represent interests in governments. And they should be invited to these sessions dealing with health, housing, education, and so on.

You may want to talk to your caucus about that because since the Liberals came in the door has been shut to us on federal-provincial relations meetings. It's only recently that some initiatives have been taken such as the Council of Ministers of the Environment, an accord of understanding with aboriginal leaders.

They've invited us to a meeting on October 2 in The Pas, Manitoba, where they hope there will be a signing of a protocol on how the aboriginal governments will work with Canada on issues affecting the environment. As I indicated to you, we also have this proposed accord on SARA that will outline how our people will work with that legislation.

• 1355

There's a meeting being proposed by the ministers in charge of the social policy network within Canada. We're not in that process yet, but we're trying to get entry to it.

The national chief just went to a meeting in Winnipeg that was called by the ministers responsible for aboriginal affairs, and that's one of the first times we've been invited to a meeting like that in a long time.

I take this opportunity, because I'll never talk to you again, probably, to point out that governments should be encouraged to look at protocols as a basis for creating institutions or mechanisms to interface between us and Canada on all these important issues. In fact, the royal commission made these 440 recommendations and a lot of that had to do with process as well in terms of relationships between us and Canada. It shouldn't be forgotten.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Spencer, you have the last five minutes.

Mr. Larry Spencer (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have in my hand a copy of the letter you referred to from Mr. Burton. I just wanted to read one sentence out of this letter. It says:

I have taken the liberty to send a copy of Bill C-10 to many coastal communities, chambers of commerce, aboriginal communities, special interest groups and individual stakeholders in my riding for input.

Mr. Chairman, you'll have to excuse my ignorance for what has happened before in this committee. It's my first time here, and it's my third committee meeting to participate in since coming onto the Hill. What seems to be prevalent is an understanding of how consultation is viewed by other people. Mr. Dearden stated that consultation was taken all up and down the coast, while Mr. Mercredi says consultation hasn't been taken.

If I were the one directly affected, I would expect consultation to have taken place before the legislation was written and then I would expect it to be brought back to me, saying, how does this seem to you? Does this fit what you were saying? Does this fit your situation? It seems to me in committee work that once it's on paper we want to rush it on through and out the door.

So I certainly sympathize with Mr. Mercredi. Would this be of help to you? Are you actually implying that you have not seen what's on paper in order to be consulted at that level?

Mr. Ovid Mercredi: The first evidence of paper is Bill C-10.

Mr. Larry Spencer: That's what I'm talking about; it's Bill C-10. Wasn't this visible to them in what was called consultation?

The Chair: Perhaps I may say something, Mr. Spencer, and I will try to restrain myself first of all.

This bill is the third version of it. It started as Bill C-48; it's been floating through the House for nearly three years now. There have been hearings on Bill C-48. I'm going to file with the committee, and I will certainly make sure you get a copy, all the letters that were sent with a draft bill to a host of organizations, including, at the time, the AFN.

With great respect to Chief Mercredi, he can't know all the things that go out there.

So to say there has been no consultation about this bill, to say that Mr. Burton is a big hero when he himself.... When did he file Bill C-10 to the Terrace and District Chamber of Commerce and the others? “This afternoon I was advised by your MP, Andy Burton, of the potential ramifications of Bill C-10”.... On May 17...he himself presented a hoist motion in the House before that. This bill has been in the House after first reading for months.

So please don't play this pious game that there's been no consultation and this committee is completely wrong. This bill has been there in the third form for something like three years. There have been hearings on Bill C-48. There was Bill C-8 and now there's Bill C-10, which has been in the House for several months.

• 1400

Before the hearings are over, I will be sure to file all the letters that got sent out by the ministry to a host of organizations with the draft bill.

To say there has been no consultation on this bill.... I agree, I must say, with Chief Mercredi. Surely there are all kinds of ways in which bills can be improved, and I hear him with a lot of respect, because I have much regard for him and for what he has done for his people, as he knows.

So I take this very seriously, but I'm not going to play politics with the consultation business to say you're holier than thou and we really failed in consultation, because I'm going to show you that there has been a lot of consultation on this bill, a host of consultations.

To say that Mr. Burton becomes the big hero when, on May 17 only, he tells people....

“Mr. Burton has asked me to write to you....” He has a host of letters there. The strange part is that they're all dated May 16, May 18, and May 22. This bill has been before the House for weeks and weeks. How come he waited until May 18 to do it when he knew our hearings were taking place here? He knows he has two or three representatives on this committee.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: The bill was off the legislative calendar. It had disappeared. The thrust of this committee was the Broadcasting Act. Then all of a sudden it was dropped and this reappeared.

The Chair: Mrs. Gallant, I've been here since 1993. When a bill gets introduced for first reading, if you have concerns about it, it's published; it's here in your hands.

If Mr. Burton represents all these areas with so much conscience, he's worried about it, and he sends the bill after first reading to these people and asks for their comments, if he's so worried that he's going to present a hoist motion in the House, surely there would be something about it before May 17. Then he comes blaming us on May 28 that there has been no consultation. I fail to accept that. I find it totally unacceptable.

I take it from Mr. Mercredi that if there has been no consultation, I'm well prepared to apologize and say there hasn't been. But to say that suddenly we become the fall guys, and I become the fall guy. “I'm very concerned”, he writes to me, “with the apparent lack of consultation on Bill C-10”, when he has never appeared here to defend his case.... As a member of Parliament, he can make interventions at any time. He has presented the hoist motion, and he waits till May 17 and May 22 to get these organizations to write.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: The hoist motion was introduced because the people who wanted to speak were involved in other committees, so they couldn't speak on that day.

The Chair: Anyway, all I can say is that I'm going to file letters here to show that the draft bill has been sent to a lot of people, a lot of organizations. A host of organizations were written to, and I will file these letters as soon as I'm able to get hold of them and file them officially with the committee. We work in consensus here, and I don't want this committee to become one where “we are right and you are wrong” or “we consult and you don't consult”, because I don't think that's fair and right in this case.

Mr. Michael d'Eça: Mr. Chairman, if I could comment on the whole matter of consultation, for aboriginal people's wildlife management boards, and so on, consultation has to take place much earlier than when it gets to the standing committee.

You're right that maybe too much pressure is being put on you as the chair and on this committee, but consultation should have taken place much earlier. There should be a process in place, a protocol that deals with impending legislation, or a discussion paper should be put forth first and put out in a culturally appropriate way to aboriginal peoples.

Sending a covering letter and a copy of the bill to the head office of an aboriginal organization certainly is not consultation, and in many instances won't get the results you might get if you send it to an academic or an environmental group or a forestry group, and so on. There are different dynamics going on. There is often underfunding, capacity problems, and so many different things. So, again, proper protocol has to be put in place.

Certainly my familiarity is with the north, with the Arctic, and there have not been consultations, although some organizations may have received letters. Consultations have not taken place there, specifically with respect to Bill C-10.

I suppose one could say, well, there's an obligation upon the organization to keep an eye on what bills are coming up. But again, the understaffing, the underfunding, and so on, and the stretching of people and the work they have to do are such that it's not going to happen.

• 1405

The first that anybody in the north, any of the northern organizations, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., and Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, and I'm not so sure about other organizations further along west of the north...I'm pretty sure I could say they haven't received anything.

The first we heard, we got a call from the clerk about a week ago—and I'm very thankful for that—saying, look, do you want to appear; it's probably your only chance, because this bill is moving along at a rapid pace, and by the time the House shuts down for the summer it's going to be out of the standing committee's hands. So even though it was very difficult, we went ahead.

I think that's the kind of frustration that comes from this side in terms of consultations, not to put it all on you, but to say overall there has to be a proper protocol that takes account of the culture and circumstances of aboriginal peoples, and it starts at a much earlier stage in the process.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much. The point is well taken.

Chief Mercredi and Mr. d'Eça, we've heard you loud and clear. I've heard what you had to say, all the reservations you have. We'll take them into account. We certainly are listening to you very seriously. So thank you very much for being here today and being very provocative and making your points quite clearly and loudly.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.