HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 23, 2001

• 1530

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.)): Order, please. Before we go to our guests, has anybody heard this morning about CTV cutting back on these regional television stations in remote regions? Could anybody tell me about this? Madam Parliamentary Secretary.

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

As I understand it, there is some concern that the regional CTV affiliates in the north are cutting back. I also understand that there is a letter that will be forthcoming to you from members of the north who are asking the standing committee to perhaps bring CTV before the committee to address these issues.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dennis Mills): They're cutting these remote regional affiliates right across Canada?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: My understanding is that northern Ontario right now is affected, but I don't have the full particulars. I was just approached at question period, and I know a number of members are quite concerned and will be bringing this matter before the committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dennis Mills): Well, I think this is really serious. Maybe the clerk, Christine, could let CTV know that we want to have an emergency meeting with them, because this is awful. After all those approvals they just got, they're now cutting from remote regions. I thought they were highly profitable.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chair, I think for people who are affected, until such time as we can find the time to hear them before our committee...certainly I would strongly recommend that members or their constituents approach the CRTC about this matter.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dennis Mills): Okay. We've raised it and we will build from there.

Now we are going to Kitimat, British Columbia, where we have with us Mr. Stowell, who is the president of Sum-It Accounting Services, and Ms. Joanne Monaghan, who is the chair of the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine.

We'd like to welcome you to the heritage committee of the House of Commons. You now have the floor. Just so you understand our format, you each have ten minutes to make your presentation, and then we'll have a short period for questions. I should let you know that all day today we've been hearing from men and women from your region, and it's been a very productive day.

So just relax and go ahead. Thank you.

Mr. F.R. Stowell (President, Sum-It Accounting Services): Thank you and good afternoon. My name is Reg Stowell. I'm an entrepreneur in Kitimat. I have a business here. On May 18 I sent a submission through your clerk to the standing committee outlining some problems I have with the bill as it's presently set up. My objective today is to perhaps expand slightly on the May 18 submission and then respond to any questions the committee members may have.

• 1535

I'd like to start by saying that while I support the principle and the concept behind Bill C-10, I have some significant problems with the actual bill itself.

My first principal objection is that such legislation is being introduced without the committee coming to British Columbia, or for that matter to the east coast, and talking with communities and people on the coast who would be most affected by the bill.

Secondly, I have a significant problem with clause 5, in that clause 5 provides for the Governor in Council—cabinet—to make changes to enlarge an area that may become a marine conservation area, but it does not allow cabinet, in case they find later that they have made a mistake, to reduce that area. It appears to me as though it would require an act of Parliament to reduce an area. It seems to me that the same system that's used to create or expand an area should be used to decrease an area or allow activity to happen in that area. So I see an inconsistency there.

I also have a problem with another part of clause 5, particularly paragraph 5(2)(b), which provides for consultation with a province but does not provide any consultation with the people or the communities in the area.

I have a problem with the second paragraph of the preamble, which speaks about the precautionary principle. In my opinion, a reasonable precautionary principle is a prudent measure. However, I think the proposed wording of the preamble is far too broad. A reasonable precautionary principle would, in my opinion, consider competing scientific evidence and arrive at a reasonable decision. If we are to insist upon scientific certainty—in other words, there is no room for competing opinion, which is a prime principle of scientific study—we will never allow any activities because we will never have certainty. So the wording is far too broad.

In my brief I set out a number of other objections, but I think those are the principal ones I have.

I think the minister is proposing to bring in legislation that is not going to benefit the people who live on the coast, that is going to provide conflict between jurisdictions of the province and the federal crown, and that is in fact already well covered by many pieces of federal legislation. I think particularly the National Parks Act and the Oceans Act cover many of the points that are proposed to be covered by Bill C-10.

I think I'll stop there. Ms. Monaghan, the chair of our regional district, has other comments she will make.

Ms. Joanne Monaghan (Chair, Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine): Thank you and good afternoon.

I am a councillor in the district of Kitimat. I'm chairman of the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine, and I'm also a past president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

In 1999 the Regional District contributed a written submission on Bill C-48. Basically, it said that we did not have enough consultation, and here I am today to say the same thing, that we feel, on Bill C-10, we did not have enough consultation. However, I do want to thank you for allowing us to have this time with you so that we can consult with you and we can give you our point of view from out west.

• 1540

First allow me to tell you just a little bit about the Kitimat-Stikine regional district. It covers a land area of about 100,000 square kilometres. We have about 44,000 people. We have communities that are large; we have communities that are small. The coastline actually extends from 52 degrees 15 minutes north to Stewart, which is 56 degrees north. So we're looking at an extensive coastline.

The economy of the Kitimat-Stikine region is highly dependent upon the extraction and the processing of natural resources, including marine resources. As local government representatives of these communities, the board of the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine is very concerned with maintaining the viability of our resource sectors so that future opportunities such as offshore oil and natural gas or aquaculture are not constrained by government policies.

For these reasons the Kitimat-Stikine regional district wishes to register its concern with Bill C-10, the Marine Conservation Areas Act. The overriding concern with the proposed legislation is that marine conservation reserves or marine conservation areas will restrict access to coastal lands and sub-surface resources.

Restriction may be imposed on every activity, ranging from recreational boating to commercial fishing. With regard to the latter, commercial fishing is already highly regulated through management of fishing gear, vessel licensing, timing of fishery openings, and area-specific management. The Marine Conservation Areas Act poses an additional regulatory burden on this sector, with the prospect of a further licensing requirement on fishing within conservation areas. Worse still is the possibility of using authority within this legislation to prohibit commercial fishing in some areas.

The prospect of a Marine Conservation Areas Act challenges those wishing to maintain historic levels and forms of economic activity, which use the marine and coastal resources on B.C.'s Pacific coast. Commercial fisheries, logging, and some minerals exploration and extraction are such traditional activities. However, those scrutinizing Bill C-10 must also account for significant economic development potential for coastal B.C. in emerging economic sectors.

On a global scale, aquaculture production rivals that of traditional methods of commercial fishing. In British Columbia aquaculture has been limited to salmon farming and some shellfish production. These businesses are mostly confined to the southern half of the province, but in the early eighties, when salmon markets were very strong, companies expressed considerable interest in bringing the industries to the north coast. The entire coastline became dotted with applications for tenure for fish farm site investigations. North coast communities are therefore very concerned with the adoption of Bill C-10 and that it will preclude aquaculture development by restricting access and discouraging risk capital. In fact, our local aboriginal band right now is looking at aquaculture within our channel, so it is coming north as we speak.

The second industry looming on the horizon for the northern half of the coast of British Columbia is offshore petroleum exploration and development. Resource evaluations put the potential for this activity larger than that of Hibernia development on Canada's Atlantic coast.

At the community level, one already finds a sizeable workforce equipped with appropriate skills and amalgamation of service and supply businesses reliant upon fishing and marine activities that could easily adapt to support an offshore oil and gas industry. Again, federal government policies can support this economic transition or circumscribe it by limiting access to resources.

The consequences of excluding areas from aquaculture or for offshore petroleum developments can be easily comprehended. Less often appreciated is that we have a very limited understanding of our marine resources. For example, sea animals and plants of coastal British Columbia may be the foundation of new industries in Canada and the supply of highly valued products to a global marketplace demanding food, food components, and pharmaceuticals.

At this stage we simply do not have a comprehensive knowledge about our sub-surface resources, nor the utilitarian aspect of these resources. A worthwhile objective of Parliament of conserving our coastal natural resource inventory may have the exact opposite effect of stifling such needed basic scientific uses and prevent any commercialization of these resources.

• 1545

The text of Bill C-10 reveals little of the locations and sizes of proposed marine conservation areas and reserves. These are to be listed in the schedules that accompany the legislation.

There is text that indicates the wish of Parliament is to establish a system of marine conservation areas that are representative and are of sufficient extent and such configuration as to maintain healthy marine ecosystems.

On land, representative areas suitable for conservation or protection are categorized by ecosystems in which the combination and uniqueness of climate, rain, soil, flora and fauna differentiate areas.

In addition, in British Columbia, government has put forth a target of placing 12% of the land base in protected areas. Does an equivalent ecosystem classification system exist for British Columbia marine environments? How can one support the legislation without knowing the size and locations of proposed marine conservation areas or reserves?

In subclause 4(1) the purpose of the legislation is given as:

(1) 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.

The citizens of Kitimat-Stikine would strongly support these purposes. However, subclause 4(2) introduces the term “marine conservation reserves”, an interim step to reserve lands and marine areas until a marine conservation area is legally established.

It is stated in subclause 4(2) that:

(2) Reserves for marine conservation areas are established...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.

While this legislation is entitled “An Act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada”, for very desirable purposes, its effect may also be to severely encumber use of vast coastal areas during a land claims negotiation process of indeterminate years.

Some constraints on the use of land and resources during land claims negotiations are acceptable, but prohibiting access to current users or effectively withdrawing extensive areas of B.C. coast from economic use is not. If the latter is the intention of the federal government, it should not be presented in the guise of conservation legislation.

In closing, Bill C-10 causes a great concern because it could seriously affect the economy of the region by restricting access to coastal areas and sub-marine resources. Bill C-10 presents another threat to our traditional economic sectors already suffering from poor commodity prices.

The Marine Conservation Areas Act also seems poised to prevent new opportunities from being utilized in such sectors as aquaculture and petroleum development.

Finally, the regional district is concerned that this act will unnecessarily restrict access for recreational and economic use during the lengthy period of land claim negotiations. The regional district is disturbed that this policy is immersed within an act written for the commendable purpose of protecting the environment.

Just a couple of notes. We feel there are already some 20-odd bills that together protect all of the conceivable interests in the water in question, and we're wondering why another bill has to take place over these 20.

Also the jurisdiction of the lands under the water in question must be resolved, we feel, prior to enforcement of the proposed bill because the waters between the mainland and the island masses are all inland waters. Those are coastal. We're looking at mostly inland waters. Therefore, land under the inland waters in the Strait of Georgia is a jurisdiction of the province. The land under the waters in the remaining inland waters north to Alaska would also be a jurisdiction of the province. We're questioning that particular issue.

Finally, just on a personal note, economic development in this area is really vital. We're really hurting in this area. I know most of you know that Air Canada has laid off 9,000 people across Canada; it was national news. Are you aware that with our softwood lumber situation our mills are going down? They're closing. Alcan diminished its force by 200 last week in Kitimat alone. We've lost our fishing industry. That's hurting.

• 1550

In northern B.C. we have now lost 17,000 jobs in these areas. Did you know that? It didn't make the national news. We are hurting. We need economic development. We know that environment and industry can live together. We must make it work together, because our people are hurting drastically. Not only that, but I know you realize that the federal government realizes a vast amount of money from our natural resources that will not be coming to you when all these areas are closed down.

Thank you for listening to me.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dennis Mills): Thank you, Ms. Monaghan.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Andy Burton.

Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Joanne and Reg. It's good to see you, even though it's by long distance. I would have really been much happier to have you out here in person, but unfortunately that wasn't possible.

We've covered a lot of the concerns this morning, but I have a couple of questions, Joanne.

You said you had made presentations in the past. You were aware of Bill C-48. It died on the order paper. Bill C-10 came forward earlier this year. Were you aware of that, that it was a reincarnation of Bill C-48?

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: Not until it was brought to my attention.

Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you.

What's your feeling on the local attitude towards the development of the oil and gas offshore, should it proceed some time in the future? What do you think the local feeling is regarding the potential?

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: I'll make some comments and then I think Reg Stowell will also want to make some comments.

I feel that the majority of the people are looking forward to some development there. It would certainly create many jobs in our area, and certainly in this day and age, with all the technology we have, I feel the environment and that particular industry could certainly live hand in hand. It did in Hibernia; I don't see why it can't here.

To expand our economic development potential...[Inaudible—Editor]....

Mr. F.R. Stowell: Thank you.

Andy, I know you're aware of it—I don't know if the rest of the committee members are—but I was a member of the...[Inaudible—Editor] land claim, so I have spent some time working on this issue in the last few months. All of the work that we were able to peruse, including some studies that were done for a northern development commissioner on public reaction to oil and gas, showed overwhelming support throughout the region for...[Inaudible—Editor]...

The provincial government has done a fair amount of work on the issue in the last little while, and today's provincial news is reporting the release of an environmental study that was commissioned by the province, by an environmental firm.... Unfortunately, I don't recall their name. CBC news reported this morning that oil and gas development on the west coast of British Columbia came to a head, that today's technology can minimize the risks to at least an acceptable if not greater than acceptable level, and that oil and gas development can proceed with environmental protection.

In fact, as I said, I was at a conference in Vancouver about 18 months ago looking at the potential. One of the presenters was an offshore fisherman from Newfoundland who initially had been a real opponent of Hibernia and now was a very firm supporter. Not only had the fisheries received significant support from the oil rigs, but in fact the bases of the rigs were becoming safe breeding grounds for some of the fish. So now we have the fishing industry on the east coast as a supporter of the oil and gas industry.

• 1555

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dennis Mills): Do you have any questions for the witnesses, Ms. Gagnon?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Yes, I have one short question.

We've heard how if adopted, the provisions of Bill C-10 would not be forced upon communities, that a public evaluation would be done, that consultations would be held and that if the public and provincial authorities decided not to act on Bill C-10, certain marine areas would never be established. Do you agree with this assessment of the situation?

[English]

Mr. F.R. Stowell: Well, if that is the government's intention, then I would suggest that could be part of the legislation, but not the way the bill reads. Perhaps clause 5 needs to be rewritten to say that specifically, that an area will not be designated without the agreement of the people living in the area, or some such wording. If that's their intention, put it in the bill.

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: I also feel that if you're going to go ahead, you still have not heard from a lot of the individuals who will be impacted. I see no one from the aboriginal people here who will be impacted in our area. I see no one from the forestry area who would be impacted. I see no one from our area here in the fisheries, although I think you did hear from them in Prince Rupert.

You must take everything into consideration, and I think you have to work with the province too because they have many areas of concern.

I don't think you should rush into this. When you say “not established”, I don't think we're saying you can't establish anything. I think we're saying let's look at it systematically, let's not rush into it, let's know what we're doing, and let's know what economic developments could be used in some of the areas. Just don't rush into it. Get all the information first.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dennis Mills): Madam Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: First of all, let me begin by thanking both of you for making your presentations. Mr. Stowell, I want to particularly thank you for your brief of May 18, which you in fact submitted to the standing committee prior to the summer recess. I must tell you that many of the issues you raised in your letter of May 18 were virtually the same as were noted today by a number of the witnesses. So thank you very much for outlining all of those concerns for us.

I guess one of the things that I wanted to say to just assure you both.... Again, the purpose of this bill is the same as what you wanted to find, a balance, and to find that balance between the ecological integrity and also sustainable uses. I noted, Ms. Monaghan, that you had been part of the process in Bill C-48 when it was introduced in the last session. Were you aware of the result of the briefs and submissions that were made, that in fact there were five major changes made to Bill C-48 that were embodied in this Bill C-10?

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: Yes, I was.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I know that one of the things that came clear under Bill C-48 was the provincial concurrence, which then resulted in paragraph 5(2)(b), which is that the government of the province must agree to the use of those lands as a marine conservation area and has transferred their control to the right of Canada.

Mr. Stowell, when you spoke, you said it doesn't provide for any consultation, and yet clause 10 of the act specifically talks about consultations with coastal communities, and clause 11 requires the minister to set up management advisory boards as well to ensure that consultation takes place.

• 1600

I understand you have this concern for consultation, but even if this bill is passed, no conservation areas will be created until such time as these sections of the bill are followed. Has there been talk about actually establishing a marine conservation area in Kitimat?

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: We do not know where any of the areas are. We understand it's coming down with the legislation. We know absolutely nothing. I find that very strange for consultation when we don't even know where these areas are. We've never been told. We've never been shown a map. When we asked about them, they said, well, it's coming down with the legislation. Then it's too late.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: There is some consultation going on with respect to the Gwaii Haanas, to propose a national marine conservation area there.

Actually, I was delighted, Mr. Stowell, to hear you had some knowledge about the oil and gas industry. Did you in fact know that in 1997 four of the petroleum companies—Chevron, Petro-Canada, Shell, and Mobil—voluntary relinquished their leases in the Gwaii Haanas area?

Mr. F.R. Stowell: I'll respond to that one. Yes, I did. There has been considerable discussion throughout the entire coast about the Gwaii Haanas area. I suspect there's pretty good support for the Gwaii Haanas part, the entire area.

I was very much aware that the exploration companies and the oil companies had voluntarily relinquished their leases. If the Gwaii Haanas area is the only area that is being proposed for the entire coast of British Columbia as a marine conservation area, then I think we probably wouldn't be having this discussion we're having today.

Our problem is that the Government of Canada proposes to bring in this legislation, and I think we have pointed out some areas that we consider flaws. The bill does not, or any of the information Canada has provided to us...schedule 1 is not complete. We have no idea where these parks are to be established. In fact, the Government of Canada could shut the community of Kitimat down completely if a marine conservation area was established somewhere in the Douglas Channel and cabinet decided to prohibit ship traffic through the area. All of our industries in Kitimat would close because all of the raw materials come in by ship and the finished product goes out by ship.

Yes, there is a provision for a management advisory committee once an area has been established, but I am very concerned that the area can be established, cabinet can decide what's going to happen, can find out there's a mistake later, the consultation committee says we have to make these changes, and cabinet can't make the changes. We'd need an act of Parliament to make the changes. There's no balance in this.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Stowell, schedule 1 is blank for the very reason that a marine conservation area cannot be created until, first, all of the principles under subclause 5(2) have been fulfilled, and, in addition, under clause 7 of the act, once it's a proposed marine conservation area, then information regarding the consultations and any agreements must be tabled and an interim management plan must be tabled. That will be sent to both Houses of Parliament, and then it's up to the committee to look at it as well. So the reason there is nothing in schedule 1 is because there are sections of the bill that require certain things to happen, the most important of which is clause 10, which is the consultation. So cabinet cannot list anything or do anything until the act has been complied with.

Again, I just don't understand why you would think that any government, provincial or federal, would want to impose something on a community that it doesn't want.

Mr. F.R. Stowell: If that was a question to me, I'd like to respond to it.

• 1605

I think the very process that's being followed to pass Bill C-10 is a perfect example of why we have had to appear. This is a piece of legislation that can have a tremendous impact on myself and everybody else who lives on the coast of British Columbia, and yet the Government of Canada does not see fit to come and talk to us about it.

Why would I believe that the Government of Canada is trying to be fair with us in the consultation process after the legislation is passed?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Stowell, you do understand that this is simply framework legislation. It applies the framework under which any kind of proposed area can be created. The legislation does not itself create a national marine conservation area.

Mr. F.R. Stowell: Yes, I do understand that, but I believe the framework of how we intend to move into the future is at least as important as the details. If the framework is flawed, then the details of the areas that are established will be similarly flawed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dennis Mills): Are there other members who have a question for the witnesses?

Mr. Burton, I think we've had a good day, a good beginning. We've had over 12 witnesses today from the region, all from your riding. This is quite a feat that you've pulled off here just in one day. We're having a second day on Thursday where we're going to have another eight or ten witnesses on this issue. Now, granted, I think the next set of witnesses, Mr. Burton, are not all from your community, but by the time this exercise is over, we will have had, just on this framework legislation, input from over 20 people from the community.

The thing I think we have to reassure the witnesses about today on the issues they've raised in terms of clarity, etc...I think that's going to give us a little bit of a challenge in the next 72 hours, to try to make sure we can alleviate some of those fears. I noticed that a few of the witnesses today, on the whole issue of the schedule, didn't realize it was blank. In other words, the genesis, the beginning, of the exercise of any park is going to come from the community and they're going to be involved in it from hour one.

I think we will continue this exercise on Thursday. We thank our witnesses for coming. We apologize that we couldn't travel to see you today, but quite frankly I thought this video conferencing exercise was pretty good. We'll just continue to build from there.

Thank you all very much. This meeting is adjourned.