Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 1, 1995

.1434

[English]

The Chairman: I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

I apologize for the delay. These are still strange days in Ottawa.

As everybody knows, this is our first day of witnesses via teleconferencing. I'm sure there may be a few technical difficulties, but we'll overcome them as we get through this.

We have a lot of witnesses scheduled for today. As the committee knows, we've decided to do this by way of teleconference so that we can have the largest amount of witnesses possible appear before us, from both from the east and the west coast, to give their opinions on the act. We will also be having some individuals come before the committee in Ottawa here to give their two cents worth on the act.

We have with us, from the Dalhousie University Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, and also representing the Naval Officers Association of Canada, Rear Admiral Fred Crickard, retired.

.1435

Welcome. You're our first guinea pig with this technology today, Fred, but you've been used in those ways before, I'm sure. I want to welcome you here today. We look forward to your presentation on behalf of both of those hats you're wearing today.

Rear Admiral Fred W. Crickard (Ret.), (National President, Naval Officers Association of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure and an honour to be asked to say a few words on this very important bill.

My credentials in this session are primarily as president of the Naval Officers Association, although, as you've pointed out, I am honoured to be a research associate with the Dalhousie Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, and also an associate with the Oceans Institute of Canada.

With regard to the Naval Officers Association, our mission is to increase public awareness of Canada as a maritime nation. In a series of conferences and proceedings we have conducted since 1989 on an annual basis, we advocate a comprehensive national oceans policy, integrated marine strategies, and a naval and regulatory force posture to back up such policy.

What I would like to do in the next few minutes is to briefly recap the evolution of national oceans policy from 1970 to 1994, take a look at what has happened since 1994 to the present, and then lead on to Bill C-98 and how I see it as an important first step in the development of an oceans management strategy and policy for Canada.

First of all, I'll look at the 1970-1994 period. Dealing in the 1970s, the strategic environment both domestically and internationally was focused primarily, at the federal level, on international offshore oil and gas exploration. There also was concern over foreign fishing in our coastal zones, our fishery zones, and marine pollution - another area of concern brought about by the Manhatten transit. As well, it was the beginning of UNCLOS III, in which Canada, as you know, played an important role.

So at this stage, what were the federal government responses? They were, of course, the passage of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act in 1972 and the declaration, in the unilateral declaration, of an exclusive fisheries zone in 1977.

In 1973, the first oceans policy for Canada statement, the emphasis on that statement was toward science and technology and to develop industries for the exploitation and development of offshore oil and gas, particularly in the high Arctic. So that policy had very much an economic development and job creation thrust to it.

In the 1980s to the mid-1990s, the strategic environment changed with the decline of the oil and gas boom; decline of the Atlantic groundfish on the east coast; increasing multiple oceans use; and the proliferation of sectoral approaches to oceans management issues in the resource, environmental, transportation and defence fields.

What were the federal government responses, then, during this change in the 1980s to the 1990s? They were at the political and bureaucratic levels. We saw in 1987 a second oceans policy for Canada statement. This one, like the 1973 one, focused on the development of oceans industries and related science and technologies, argued for improved oceans management - and Fisheries and Oceans was made the lead department in this regard at the federal level - and also made the point about the protection of sovereign rights over resources.

As you are aware, I am sure, the Canada oceans act was stated in the 1987 paper as an intention of the government at that time.

In 1990 the Green Plan was promulgated. It indeed took over some aspects of marine environmental issues. That was at the political level.

At the bureaucratic level, by way of follow-up, a marine council was formed, an advisory council, and an interdepartmental committee of the oceans.

In 1990, not related to the follow-up on the 1987 oceans policy but because of the lack of fishery hours for previous enforcement, the Osbaldeston report was tabled. It called for greater fleet utilization of the government fleets - the navy, coast guard and Fisheries and Oceans.

By and large, the initiatives of the 1987 policy statement were either abandoned or stalled. By 1994 - except for fleet coordination, the continuation of the multi-year science plan, and the marine environmental quality advisory group, all of which were fallouts of the 1987 paper and the Osbaldeston study - most of the earlier initiatives were abandoned or stalled, including the Canada oceans act.

.1440

That brings us to the period of 1994 to the present. What is the strategic environment during this two-year period? Of course national debt and reduced budgets are claiming primary attention. General issues and themes of decentralization and deregulation have continued. The Atlantic and Pacific fisheries crises and all the socio-economic implications of those have come to a head.

Internationally, in 1992 we saw the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the Rio conference, and its very important Agenda 21 chapter 17 issues, focusing on the grassroots approach to coastal management and community involvement. The Conference of the Law of the Sea, of course, was ratified last November. High-seas fisheries crises have sprung up in a turbot war, and by and large the ecosystem approach has become an important issue and a consideration in the development of oceans policy strategies.

It's interesting that from 1994 to the present time there has been a proliferation of political, parliamentary, and bureaucratic responses to these various changes in strategic environment. I've counted some twelve initiatives at the federal level since 1994, including Bill C-98. These include foreign policy. The Special Joint Committee on Foreign Policy tabled its report in November 1994, and the responses of both Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada in February 1995 recommended and supported the ratification of the Law of the Sea, urged greater support for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, and advocated the merits of marine technology and technology transfer.

Likewise, a special joint committee on defence policy in November 1994 and the subsequent defence white paper in December emphasize the protection of Canada as probably the first-priority role of maritime forces. This involves the monitoring and control of our above-water, surface, and underwater approaches, support for other government department operations in their regulatory modes, national search and rescue ability, and humanitarian assistance.

Industry Canada produced its review of federal science and technology in June 1994. Of course, the very important advisory boards on science and technology produced two key reports, the Committee on Oceans and Coasts report in May 1994, and the Framework for an Integrated Federal Science and Technology Strategy in April 1995.

On marine transportation, the Standing Committee on Transport has produced its recommendations in a national marine strategy dated May 1994. At the operational level we have seen fleet amalgamation of the coast guards and the DFO fleets under the Department of Fisheries. Finally, in Fisheries and Oceans itself, the minister has promulgated and distributed for public discussion his A Vision for Ocean Management in November 1995, and of course, Bill C-98 in June 1995.

That's at least twelve federal initiatives focusing on oceans policy, which indicates to me a resurgence of interest at the federal level of an oceans policy for Canada comparable to 1973 peaks and 1987 peaks.

In summary, over the past 25 years we have seen attempts to integrate oceans policy or at least coordinate between sectors at the political and bureaucratic levels of the federal scene. However, after each peak, government interest and awareness, both in 1973 and 1987, have been followed by a trough of resolve or lack of follow-through.

We are on another wave at the moment since 1994, with this renewed attention to oceans affairs, which of course, in my view and the view of the Naval Officers Association, makes the passage of the Canada Oceans Act all the more important. I will turn then to Bill C-98 and its place in our appreciation towards a new oceans policy for Canada.

Of the twelve or so measures that I've just gone through, it would appear that the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology's report on oceans and coasts, A Vision for Ocean Management, and Bill C-98 are a continuum.

The National Advisory Board on Science and Technology's report on oceans and coasts recommended a Canada Oceans Act that would declare an exclusive economic zone as the basis for regulation, create an oceans science management strategy, make environmental protection of the oceans a management priority, and build on international scientific cooperation to protect our oceans' resources.

.1445

Subsequently A Vision for Ocean Management by the minister in November builds on the NABST report and also incorporates the new responsibilities for marine trade and commerce. The vision statement also indicates the government's intention to table a Canada oceans act and to develop an oceans management strategy concurrently and subsequently focusing on marine trade and commerce, oceans resource development and sustainability of the oceans' environment and marine resources.

The Naval Officers Association of Canada appreciates them, and we see Bill C-98 as a first step towards an oceans management strategy or an oceans policy for Canada. The bill of course recognizes in domestic law Canada's jurisdiction over its maritime zones. It establishes the legislative framework to develop and implement a new oceans management regime and consolidates most of the federal responsibility for managing Canada's oceans - most of it.

In the view of the Naval Officers Association this bill does two things. It catches up on the current strategic environment, i.e., Canada's maritime zones, paves the way for ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and is a timely legislative consolidating and housekeeping measure. Besides catching up, it also looks ahead by clearly establishing the minister as the trustee or the prime mover in the development and implementation of a national oceans management strategy.

We therefore consider Bill C-98 to be the overture; the concert has yet to begin and the music will be faced in due course. Bill C-98 is a start. The real work at the federal level will be in developing the subsequent oceans management strategy. It will obviously be a lengthy process - several years over the length of any one government - involving all levels of government, regions, communities, the private sector, universities, colleges, institutes and interest groups.

In conclusion, we believe the Oceans Act to be the first step in a plan that sets the tone for the ensuing management regime.

Secondly, we agree with the legal and regulatory framework over Canada's exclusive economic zone and contiguous zone, which is incorporated in the act. The establishment of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as the trustee accountable for oceans management has the potential for eliminating some of the sectoral, fragmented and reactionary policies and regulations that have evolved.

Finally, we agree with the goals and objectives of what might be in the oceans management strategy, as suggested in A Vision for Ocean Management, as far as they go. However, we feel they don't go far enough in three areas in particular. The wording of the vision and also the wording and the specificity of the bill seem to mute three very important functions that we in the NOAC think should be given greater elevation and prominence.

The first of these is that the object of economic development, marine industry competitiveness and wealth generation is not explicitly stated in the bill as far as we can see. We feel it should be near the top of the list along with conservation, protection and resource management. Canada has the skills and potential to lead in oceans industry international competitiveness.

Secondly, integrated maritime enforcement of Canadian and international laws and regulations should be given greater prominence. The federal initiative in seeking closer integration and interoperability between the principal government fleets - the navy, the coast guard and Fisheries and Oceans - is sound. However, much more must be done to reduce the high cost of the technical means of surveillance, monitoring and control. Reducing the overhead costs of enforcement means increased international competitiveness.

Last, it is not clear from the document how the federal oceans management strategy will fit with regional and provincial coastal waters management plans. I refer to the multiple coastal zone management projects and activities that are under way in Atlantic Canada, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Fraser River Basin. This relationship is crucial. Much will depend on the tone of the partnership agreements with provinces and other jurisdictions, which should be consultative and participatory rather than autocratic.

Nevertheless, the Naval Officers Association of Canada is encouraged to see oceans returning as part of the national political agenda, after hibernating for several years. We congratulate the government for taking the lead at this juncture in our nation's history. The proposed Oceans Act has our support, and we will work as a helpful partner in turning the vision of Canada's oceans into action and reality.

Thank you.

.1450

The Chairman: Fred, thanks very much for the presentation.

I have a couple of questions. The only other witness outside departmental witnesses that we've had was CARC. They were here just before the brouhaha a week ago with all the referendum stuff. They made similar observations, but perhaps different recommendations. One of the things they thought was that there had to be a preamble in the bill to tie the bill together.

You indicate that the goals and objectives do not go far enough. I don't have a question on that, but I do have a question. You seem to be saying that you support the bill as a first step. The concern that some members of the committee have, and I'm one of them, is that in the real world of legislative timetables it is very seldom that an issue gets revisited very quickly at the legislative level. Given the fact that this particular policy area has been started and stopped - it's been in fits and stalls for a number of years - is it good enough to be a good first step, or in your view, while this committee has it and during the report stage, are there things we should be pressing to have included in this bill so that we don't have to wait another 10 years before it gets fixed or amended or built upon? Do you believe some obvious things are missing, which could be considered at this time and make you more comfortable that we have a stronger bill at this time?

RAdm Crickard: Yes. I would like to see things in the bill that are not in the act now. But my worry is, if it goes back to the drawing board, will that stall yet again?

The Chairman: No, I don't think it will, Fred.

A departmental line we heard as well is that there is concern that if we take this bill and report it, say there are eight or ten things that should be added, and then send it to P and P, we'll lose it. I think the direction we're going to take is to report the bill amended or unamended, as is the will of the committee, but make some recommendations as to some other things, which have come from witnesses like you, that the government may wish to consider.

I don't think our intent in any way, shape or form is to tie the thing up, to force it back to P and P, but if there are some obvious things missing.... I think most members of the committee can identify what they believe is missing. We intend to do that by way of an interim report or subsequent report.

If you were doing this bill today, what are the things you would put in it?

RAdm Crickard: From the Naval Officers Association's point of view, I would put in some phrases and paragraphs on the notion of integrated maritime enforcement. I make this point, because in the consultation process in and around the vision statement, nine issue areas were identified. They included integrated management of ocean resources, sustainable development, economic development, science and technologies, ecosystem approach, marine environmental quality, marine protected areas, contiguous zones and exclusive zones, and regional planning frameworks, management plans and decision-making.

Integrated maritime enforcement as a subject does not appear anywhere in those issue areas. We believe it's a very important issue area, as the dramatic turbot prices have proved. It's important not only in its operational and technical considerations but also in the political, legal, and non-government methods of enforcement, such as coastal watch with the RCMP.

I think that one issue area, the notion of integrated maritime enforcement, should appear somewhere in the bill.

I'll just add another point if I may. I also indicated that we at NOAC feel that economic development and job creation are muted and the whole issue of how the federal government is going to interact with its partners in the coastal zones is muted.

I'm not by any means an expert in those areas, but I do note that the wording on both of those issues is muted, whereas the wording on everything else, including marine protected areas, is given prominence.

In answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, I would include a paragraph or two as appropriate on the notion of integrated maritime enforcement and look again at the emphasis that the bill now places - or fails to place - on economic development, regional planning, and regional coastal zone management.

The Chairman: Where would you see that, Fred? Would you see it in a preamble of the bill, part of the overview, the tying together of the various pieces that set out the framework, the goals?

.1455

RAdm Crickard: It could be there. From the integrated maritime enforcement point of view, I'd like to see it in part II...explicit in the enabling legislation that the minister will receive as the principal trustee. I would feel easier if it were explicitly phrased in part II, so that when enabling legislation is taken up and actions occur to develop and implement policy, that issue item is not forgotten. It's a very important one, from the point of view not only of regulations but also of more cost-effective ways of exercising enforcement.

The Chairman: Just for clarity, you're indicating that it should be explicit in part II that the minister has the responsibility to initiate and coordinate an integrated approach to enforcement in the marine areas. Is that what I'm hearing you say?

RAdm Crickard: Yes, somewhere in in part II. For example, the coast guard and marine science are given a place there, so I would include maritime enforcement as well.

The Chairman: This bill is also an attempt at the consolidation of programs and responsibilities to ensure that you have a very sharp point to oceans policy. There are a number of pieces of legislation that currently fall outside the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans subsequent to this bill; for example, there are provisions at Environment dealing with deep ocean dumping and provisions at Indian and Northern Affairs dealing with some of the issues in the Arctic Ocean, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. One of the things I think members of the committee have expressed is that perhaps some of these items, which currently are not consolidated and included, should be at this time. Do you have any comments on that?

RAdm Crickard: No, I don't in particular. I'm not expert in that area, but I suppose I would ask, as did your committee members, why were they not. However, I have no expert opinion to give on that, except to say that if they should be included, now is the time for another look.

The Chairman: Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells (South Shore): I would like to get clarification on what you mean by the first two points you raised, and I'm going to refer to your conclusion page, Fred, to your first and second recommendations.

Let's go to the second one first, in which you talk about integrated maritime enforcement. Could you explain in more detail what you mean by that?

RAdm Crickard: I'm primarily focusing on the operation or technical dimension of maritime enforcement, and I am suggesting that the very good work that has been done in greater coordination at the federal level of the three government fleets, if you like - the navy, the coast guard, and Fisheries - and at the waterfront, in developing partnership and joint operations between military and civilian authorities in command and control information systems, joint exercises, training, etc., should be brought to the attention of policy-makers and incorporated, if not in the bill, in a general statement. It should certainly be a high issue in the development of oceans management strategy.

The navy and maritime forces support something like six government departments, including DND, and I can go into all of this, if you like. Business has never been more brisk. Since January of this year on the east coast, in addition to the turbot war, there have been at least two RCMP drug operations and one illegal immigration operation. On three occasions the ready duty ship, a destroyer, was sortied on weekends in response to emergencies. This was on top of the continuing Fisheries and Oceans patrols, preventive patrols of the RCMP, search and rescue operations with the coast guard, illegal patrol intercepts with Employment and Immigration, technical assistance by Maritime Command with customs officials in dealing with contraband and research vessels, and DND's own patrols and Arctic patrols, including, I might add, the Arctic flight that detected debris from the Russian Typhoon submarine-launched ballistic missile launch, which took place on August 25, 1995, in the Canadian sector of the Arctic Ocean.

.1500

Now a tremendous amount of activity has developed, both defence-related and related to other government departments. I am very glad the turbot war broke out, if you like, in 1995 and not in 1990, because I recall that in 1990 we could speak with the Russian naval ships more easily at sea than we could speak with the Canadian Coast Guard, because we are on different frequencies. But that has all improved.

So I'm really focusing in on the operational and technical mergers that are taking place because of reduced budgets, because we can't afford the luxury of separate fleets. I think that's the sort of thing that must be front and centre in the ocean management strategy hearings as they develop.

Is that...?

Mr. Wells: Yes, that's the explanation I was looking for.

You go on to say in that same paragraph that much more must be done to reduce the high cost of technical means of surveillance and so on. So you've basically covered that in your answer as well. By those methods, that would also happen. Those costs would be -

RAdm Crickard: Well, yes, but I'd like to elaborate a bit on that. This sort of impinges on the NOAC's report on integrated science and technology strategies.

There are two enabling technologies that offer great promise. One is surveillance and the other is information systems. Already we see the development - and I believe some of the action from the turbot war has brought this out - of government ships now linking and exchanging data on what they call Link 11, so that each ship, regardless of whether it's a coast guard, Fisheries or navy ship, has the same operational picture, things of that nature.

There is no reason why, for example, as we develop space base, aerospace and other means of surveillance - underwater, too - that all this information should not be data-fused in one central location and then disbursed to customers, be they military or non-military.

I think by coordinating and correlating and building in new S and T and surveillance information technologies so that it can be distributed to all customers, as opposed to each department doing its own, that's bound to reduce the overhead. It is expensive. The expense of having an observer on each vessel under the agreement reached with the EU is terribly expensive.

Mr. Wells: Are you up to date on some of this black box, so-called, technology to locate vessels at sea on a continuous basis? Are you familiar with that technology as it's being developed?

RAdm Crickard: I am reasonably familiar with it. We are having a conference in St. John's in a week and a half's time to look at that very aspect. But it shows great promise.

Mr. Wells: Thank you.

BRAdm Crickard: Data fusion, I think.

Mr. Wells: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Verran, do you have any comments on this?

Mr. Verran (South West Nova): Admiral, I want to congratulate you on pursuing an oceans interest after retirement from the navy. I want to say that you look very young to me. I remember as a naval photographer taking your picture with groups on many occasions, and there is not much difference, except for the uniform and the braid that you wore in those days, from how I see you today.

However, my question would be to ask you what consideration of management of the ocean strategy should be pursued or should be turned over to the navy rather than either the coast guard or the DFO on both coasts of Canada? Do you have a preference?

The Navy has always been in the forefront of policing and of surveillance, and with the new amalgamation, I wonder what part you see the Canadian navy playing, specifically in the future?

RAdm Crickard: Thanks for your remark.

To answer your question, I don't see a major legislative or regulatory change in the navy's role. I would say, carry on doing what it's doing now, which it does well.

For one thing, of the three fleets - and by navy, I include Maritime Air as well, air patrol is best suited to maintain surveillance patrol and response outside the 200-nautical mile limit, farther to sea, on the high seas. The capabilities of maritime forces, including submarines, give it ability for high-speed search, wide area coverage, undersea surveillance, the use of force, if necessary, and so on. These are attributes and skills that the maritime forces, navy and Maritime Air, which were designed to fight a war should that ever come, are very useful skills to have to back up the other capabilities of the coast guard and Fisheries.

.1505

To answer your question, I don't see a great change, legislative or regulatory, in what the navy is doing. In fact, I would not personally encourage the navy taking on regulatory enforcement. This is the mandate of other departments. I don't think we want to see our navy arresting Canadian citizens. We can arrest Spaniards and Americans - that's easy - but the navy doesn't want to see the navy arresting Canadians. We have the coast guard and the RCMP on the regulatory side.

At the moment, the navy has no statutory responsibilities for the enforcement of Canadian regulations in the sense that we're discussing, but it does provide that powerful back-up, as it did during the turbot war, when there was always one naval ship over the horizon, and two near the very end. But the actual mixing it up with the offending vessels was done by the coast guard and Fisheries.

To answer your question, sir, I would see that division of responsibility continuing and the navy bringing its capabilities and attributes to bear so that we have a total picture.

Mr. Verran: Thank you. Your opinion on that matter is appreciated. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Fred, just before you go, I want to pick up on that again. There are a lot of departments that do a lot of work and have a lot of presence in Canada's oceans, within our waters.

You mentioned something about central data and collection and retrieval. Currently, if Environment Canada is picking something up, it resides with Environment Canada. If the coast guard has a database, I would suspect that it resides with the coast guard. If the Canadian navy has certain pieces of information or data, it remains with them.

Are you suggesting that the Oceans Act should empower or set up or request that more thought be given into that central data collection and retrieval? Is that what you're talking about?

RAdm Crickard: I'm not sure if I'd want to see it that specific in the act. That should certainly be a consideration as we develop an ongoing oceans management strategy and as parliamentary committees like yours, Mr. Chairman, do the rounds on that once the Oceans Act is in place.

What is happening now, in fact, is that less and less do these other major oceans departmental players keep their information to themselves. On the east coast, for example, there is a permanent RCMP officer and a permanent customs officer located at all times in the maritime operations centre of the navy. There have always been coast guard officers in the centre next door on rescue coordination.

So we are seeing a gradually closer liaison between other government departments, actually at the command headquarters. A system called CANMARNET, Canadian Maritime Network, has been developed, which is a fairly cheap and nasty no-MILSPEC nonsense type of thing. It is now being fitted into coast guard, Fisheries, and naval vessels so that they can exchange data pictures at sea. The captain of a coast guard ship would have the same picture as the captain of a destroyer. That data is also being fed back to the maritime operations centre, where in a crisis other departmental reps would close off.

I see this the continuation of this development as a good thing. The navy doesn't want all the data on fish catches and this, that and the other; it wants data in terms of patrols, surveillance and response. It wants data that it needs, as it was provided with in the turbot war of the disposition of non-cooperating targets. That sort of thing is best coordinated by the naval headquarters because they have the gear to do it.

I wouldn't see that amount of detail going into part II of the enabling legislation, but I think the wording could be made in a couple of paragraphs of that part II to encapsulate where we are now and the direction we want to go. We want closer coordination of data and fusion of data and distribution of not just data but of information and evaluation to a variety of sources, be they civilian or military. We're on the way now, but let's enshrine it.

The Chairman: Okay. I want to thank you for being patient with us today as we got ourselves up and running. If there's anything else you do want to send to us subsequent to the meeting, you know how to get me and how to get the committee. Again, thank you for your comments. You've been helpful, and we'll probably see you in person sooner as opposed to later. We might see you in St. John's next week.

RAdm Crickard: I hope so.

Thank you and good luck in your deliberations.

The Chairman: Our next witness is from the Oceans Institute of Canada. We have four witnesses at the other end. They're all from the same institute.

I'm not sure who we have. On my list I have David VanderZwaag, associate; David Copp, associate; Phillip Saunders, associate; and Dr. Aldo Chircop, associate, from the Oceans Institute of Canada.

So who am I looking at?

.1510

Mr. David VanderZwaag (Associate, Oceans Institute of Canada): I am David VanderZwaag. The others will follow in order: David Copp, Phillip Saunders and Aldo Chircop.

The Chairman: How do you propose doing this? Are you each going to give a separate presentation, or all part of one presentation? This is so that I know for the question-and-answer period.

Mr. VanderZwaag: We're open as to how to proceed. I guess the idea was that we'd each give about five- or six-minute presentations and then be open to receive questions. You may want to question us one at a time as we proceed, or we could do it as a group question period at the very end.

The Chairman: To ensure there's enough time given to whoever is unfortunate enough to be the last presenter, why don't we get each of the presenters to give his brief, and then we'll get them to pull the camera back a bit and open it up to questions from this end? Is that okay?

Mr. VanderZwaag: That's sounds fine.

I'd like to thank the committee on behalf of the associates of the Oceans Institute of Canada for inviting us to review and suggest improvements to the proposed act.

I think the draft Oceans Act may be described in one word - disappointing. At best, the title might more appropriately be the ``Oceans Enabling Act''. The act leaves a tremendous amount of discretion to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other government officials. At worst, the proposed act might be called the ``Oceans Disabling Act''. The Oceans Act does not guarantee industry and public involvement and full participation in policy-making under the act, nor does it provide for the guaranteed involvement of provinces and municipal governments in policy-making under the act.

We're going to address six issue areas that we think are very important to be addressed with improvements in the legislation as proposed. I will address very quickly three major problems.

The first problem is the failure of the proposed act to clearly spell out what the concept and principles of sustainable development mean. Right now you can go to clause 30 of the bill and it really is rather confusing. It talks about sustainable development as a principle. If you look at most of the academic literature, most writers in the field today all agree that sustainable development is not merely a principle; it's a concept, it's an ethic, it's a broad goal. Then there are all these numerous principles that give it additional flesh or meaning.

These principles are fundamental. They are important international environmental obligations to which Canada has committed itself under the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, under various international conventions, under Agenda 21. Those principles are precaution, pollution prevention, polluter pays, community-based management, public participation, indigenous rights, and you can go on with that list.

My overall suggestion is that we should provide for a detailed listing of those principles with clear definitions of those principles under this legislation. That could be done through amendment of clause 30. The chair has recently mentioned also wanting to look maybe at a purpose clause of the bill, going back to the beginning of the bill. That's the other way to go. Many environmental legislation statutes around the world now do that. It's common to see some purpose section with all the concepts and principles of sustainable development laid out very clearly. If you look at Nova Scotia's Environment Act of 1995 - a great example - section 2 of that act gives a nice detailed list of what these principles mean, with very clear definitions.

My second major point is to point out the weakness of the need to flesh out the national oceans management strategy requirements under the proposed act. One of the major promises of this proposed Oceans Act is that a national oceans management strategy will be formulated. That's a positive thing in the bill. However, there's no flesh, no details as to what that national strategy should do, what force it might have, what exactly it is. This leaves it very vacuous.

As I suggest in my written brief, I think there should be a number of things done in amending the legislation around the area of clause 29, which refers to this national oceans strategy. One is to lay out a clear checklist of what the contents of that strategy should be. I have a quick check-list of some of the things I would put on that list and that should be there in legislation.

.1515

One is to implement the principles of sustainable development: priorities and process to be followed in designating marine protected areas; approaches to reducing fragmentation in governmental approval and decision-making; the need to integrate and coordinate maritime enforcement; recommendations on environmental standards setting; appropriate dispute resolution; need for regional ocean management strategies; implementation of Canada's international obligations affecting coastal and ocean environments; evaluation of regional ocean management agreements and arrangements, and recommendations for strengthening those regional arrangements.

That's not a pipe dream. If you look at New Zealand's Resource Management Act of 1991, it's a lead piece of legislation internationally. They have a requirement of a national coastal policy that is to be established under that legislation. In section 58, they do give a check-list of contents of what an oceans coastal policy should look like.

Also, I suggest that there should be a two-year timeframe, a deadline to develop a national oceans strategy.

As well, there should be some mechanism to ensure full independent critique and recommendations of the strategy that's produced. I would recommend that the legislation be amended to require the formation of an oceans council, or oceans commission, with broad representation from NGOs, industry, various levels of government, academics, and aboriginal groups, which at the end of the day when this strategy is proposed would review that strategy, hold public hearings, receive public comments, and then make recommendations back to the minister on how the strategy perhaps should be changed or adapted.

My third and final point is that I think we need to address the lack of parliamentary review and reporting. The existing legislation does not provide for parliamentary review or reporting. I would recommend then that the legislation have a clause or clauses added to ensure that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans reports every year on implementation of the act, on exactly what has been done and what has not been done, and even more importantly, that perhaps this committee should review the Oceans Act after three years to see where the oceans strategy has gone - and I think there's going to be a tremendous number of amendments that should be considered very soon on after this ocean strategy is developed - and provide for additional reviews every five years thereafter.

Again, one can look at the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Section 138 provides for reviews, ministerial reporting, in another context, and there's a perfect model to be incorporated into the Oceans Act.

Those very briefly are my comments.

The Chairman: Thank you. Who do we have next?

Mr. VanderZwaag: Mr. David Copp will be next.

Mr. David Copp (Associate, Oceans Institute of Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and hon. members.

I'm David Copp. I'm the general counsel with the International Centre for Enterprise and Development, which is a private enterprise in Halifax. I'm a member of the Nova Scotia bar, and I practise on a consulting basis in the areas of international development and development law. My appearance today, of course, is by reason of my associateship with the Oceans Institute of Canada.

The focus for my presentation is on part II of the proposed Oceans Act, Bill C-98, that is, the portion dealing with oceans management strategy. The area that was reflected in the notes, which I believe have been forwarded up to the committee, has to do with the degree to which it succeeds, or is likely to succeed, in enabling the practice of current management concepts, which we think are of critical importance, particularly with respect to the coastal zone that we take to be a central area of oceans policy.

There have been references made already in the presentations, to Agenda 21 and chapter 17 of that agenda, arising from the UNCED conference in 1992 to which Canada has acceded. I wanted perhaps to make some reference to integrated coastal zone management and how it becomes an obligatory part of the practice of Canadian domestic law.

.1520

I refer to chapter 17 of that, referring to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The convention:

One of those identified - in fact, it's the first one - is program area (a): ``Integrated management and sustainable development of coastal areas, including exclusive economic zones''.

Further, under the activities to be implemented in accordance with compliance with chapter 17, under ``management-related activities'', it says:

``Integrated coastal zone management'' is a phrase that appears frequently in the literature and also in the practice of these management approaches. I think one of the things that seriously needs to be considered is whether there is true substance to that phrase or whether it is simply a name for other things that may be contemplated or subsumed under the general term ``ocean management'', or ``ocean management strategies''.

I would make reference to two documents that I think are of use in the consideration of this. One, from 1993, is Coastal Zone Management: Integrated Policies from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The second is Noordwijk Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Zone Management, presented for distribution at the World Coast Conference 1993 in the Netherlands, as issued and published by the World Bank environment department. They deal in a more substantive basis than I'm able to present, in the amount of time I have available here, with the substance of integrated coastal zone management.

I can say that at a more local level, integrated coastal zone management has been the subject of interest provincially and regionally. A number of initiatives are under way.

I would make reference to a definition based on both those policy documents, the Noordwijk guidelines and the OECD presentation. This appears as the working definition for a structural concept paper I participated in drafting with the Oceans Institute of Canada for use regionally.

The following operating definition is provided:

That definition can be reconciled with some of the programs that are under way, or the studies that have been done regionally or provincially. I mentioned, for example, the national marine conservation program Coastal 2000, which is a provincial consultation paper dealing with the exploration of how the coastal zone will be managed in the future for our province; the Clure report in New Brunswick; the report of the royal commission on land use of Prince Edward Island; and the strategic economic plan for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The reflection of these in legislation at a federal or national level is of critical importance for us. I would make reference to legislation from another jurisdiction so that one might just sample the flavour and substance of this and compare it with the text of the current draft of Bill C-98.

.1525

Here, for example, the following appears:

Farther on in that section it says:

That is taken from the Coastal Zone Management Act, from the United States Code, beginning at chapter 1451. I think the salient point is that's an enactment of the year 1972. That speaks of some anticipation of concepts of coastal zone management.

Coming forward in time to the current Oceans Act and its introduction, I would make specific reference to a portion of the address on Oceans Day, by which the Hon. Brian Tobin introduced that bill under the topic ``Environmental Management'', at page 12, in which the following was said:

To the best of my knowledge the phrase doesn't appear in the current draft, and I suggest that the volume of material and the development of the principles of integrated coastal zone management and issues of the coastal zone ought to appear very saliently in this statute. If they do not appear here in the Oceans Act of Canada, I really doubt there is another statute that we can point to where they could be adequately dealt with. As has already been observed by the chairman, once this statute has gone through the parliamentary process, as a topic of novel or additional process it may be some time before it comes back before the legislative authority of Parliament.

There isn't time in this sort of presentation to deal in detail with relating the comments I've made to the text of the statute, but I would observe in passing that clause 28, which is the opening clause of part II, says:

I'm aware of the text of Hansard wherein at second reading a reference was made to that clause as noting that the principal jurisdiction for those rests in the provincial legislatures and not in the federal legislature, given the provisions of the Constitution Act.

However, I suppose as statutory interpretation may go, it raises a grave apprehension that the subsequent powers of the minister or whatever is exercised pursuant to the Oceans Act cannot have to do with rivers and lakes because the enabling clause does not apply to rivers and lakes. On an integrated approach, including either human activities or social and economic issues or the ecosystems, the exclusion on jurisdictional basis of the ability to include these is something that would be of concern.

With respect to clauses 29 and 30, where the set-up provisions appear for the national strategy, it says:

Paragraph 30(a) has already been made the subject of comment by David VanderZwaag. Paragraph 30(b) says the national strategy will be based on the principle of:

.1530

I would like to make a final comment and refer to clauses 32 and 33, which are enabling. One of the concerns there is the ability of the minister acting under those powers to enter into agreements, to set up coordinating agencies, and to generally initiate programs that involve the governments of the provinces. The land-based side of the coastal zone is of course an inherently provincial place jurisdictionally, and yet the only reference to a province in those areas appears at paragraph 33(1)(e), where the minister may:

The other ones omit a reference to a province or to any minister, board or agency of a province of Canada, and the phrase ``other ministers, boards and agencies'' is modified by the phrase ``Government of Canada''. There is no provincial indexing there.

One would be left, I guess, with the argument in court that interested persons and bodies could well include governments of other provinces. It could include ministers of those governments, it could include boards. It's not clear from this perspective why the minister is not empowered to enter into virtually any or all of these authorities, in direct collaboration or agreement with the government of a province.

For example, the Structured Concept - The Atlantic Accord on Integrated Management of the Coastal Zone contemplates that an accord would eventually be signed by the Government of Canada and the provinces that are involved in the region. It's difficult to find sure and certain support for the jurisdiction under this bill for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to participate in that area.

These are, I think, not structural deficiencies in the bill, but they may reflect the need to elaborate on the drafting and to extend it to expressly provide for what I hope was intended but is not mentioned in the detailed text.

Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman and members. Thank you.

The Chairman: I saw some people taking some notes there, so you may get some questions a little later.

Who is next?

Mr. Phillip Saunders (Associate, Oceans Institute of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm with Dalhousie Law School. I'm also an associate with the Oceans Institute.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members, thank you for the opportunity to address you on the proposed oceans act today. I'm still getting used to this format. It's a little bit like a high-tech karaoke, but without the script to follow.

The Chairman: If you ever feel like breaking into song, you know we're fine at this end.

Mr. Saunders: I will avoid it at all costs.

I'd like to make a few brief comments on the provisions relating to marine scientific research, in particular clauses 42 and 43. I am well aware that the prospect of the lawyers commenting on the science would give many the scientist the shivers. I think there are some legal issues to be dealt with.

I'll focus on three things only: first, on the nature of the model the bill sets out for the organization of scientific research within the government; second, on the dangers and difficulties that I believe are inherent in that approach; and third, on a possible alternative from among a range of alternatives the committee may wish to explore.

On the proposed model, clauses 42 and 43, in line with current government structure, provide that the minister may carry out a number of scientific functions, including data collection and analysis on all aspects of marine ecosystems and resources.

The minister is provided with almost complete discretion as to the purpose of the scientific research that is undertaken and the relative weight to be given to different research priorities. Furthermore, the operational or day-to-day control of the research is based on continuing centralization within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, with really only advisory input under other statutes from outside.

.1535

There are difficulties with this model, despite its strengths in some areas. The proposed approach to research raises at least two fundamental problems that I believe are underscored by the emerging picture of the role that scientific advice played in the lead-up to the current crisis in the cod fishery.

First, subjecting all scientific research to the direct operational control of both the minister and the federal bureaucracy raises the danger that research efforts will be dictated primarily by the policy considerations of the day. The extreme form of this could involve suppression or alteration of scientific advice that is given by scientists who are subject to the full discipline of the public service.

But even in its less obvious form - the redirection of research efforts to suit policy concerns - the problem is a serious one. Fundamentally, Mr. Chairman, if science is to be fully reliable and therefore useful, it ought to be given some degree of independence under the act. Science and politics, and also science and bureaucracy, do not always mix as well as we might wish.

The second difficulty I see, with particular reference to the fisheries issue, I think, is that it is possible that integrating all or most marine science functions within the same department that is charged with resource management may tend to downplay basic research in favour of activities that will give some kind of answer to today's management problem, and give it as quickly as possible. This emphasis is a natural one, given the pressures, particularly the time pressures, of the management process. The problem is, it may turn out that the questions we needed answers to were questions that could not be addressed by the short-term management-oriented research such as that directed to providing a number for this year's quota, for example.

When the crunch came on this coast - one of the series of crunches, I guess - it appeared to many that not enough was known, for example, about the biology and life cycle of the various cod stocks as opposed to, for example, the quantitative models that were in place for predicting stock numbers and assigning quotas.

There is a place for both types of research. The danger with the consolidated approach within one department is that basic research, critical though it may be to the management effort in the long run, will be sidelined as a priority, in favour of short-run management objectives.

Given the time limitation, I don't intend to address alternatives to this model in detail, and I think it's something that can be pursued in more detail if the committee has interest. But I think there are options that could be pursued, ranging from a minimum of defining in the act the independence of scientific advice and the protection of those who give it.

There may be a possibility that goes further that this committee might pursue. I would suggest that some consideration should be given to establishing a body, or giving the minister power to establish a body, that operates at arm's length from the minister and the bureaucracy, with an independent mandate assigned in the statute and protected by the statute, and under the direction of an independent and highly qualified board.

Clearly, not all research functions could appropriately be assigned to such a body. Its focus should be on what might be crudely lumped together as basic or long-term research. In addition, this agency would of course still be accountable to government for budgetary matters and general policy direction.

The details of that obviously require more discussion than is possible in this presentation, but the basic rationale, Mr. Chairman, is as follows: an independent scientific voice, guided by the science and not by the exigencies of day-to-day management or politics, would enhance in the long run our understanding of the oceans and thus our ability to manage them in a sustainable manner.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Don't go far, because I think we have one more presenter. But you did a bit of hit and run there. You came in and whetted our appetite. I have a few questions, and I think some other members have as well. So when we're through with the next witness, we're going to call you back, because we do have an interest in that. You've made some statements that are a little bit confusing to me, but I'm confused most days anyway. So you can clear me up a little later.

Moving right along, the next witness we have here is Aldo Chircop.

.1540

Dr. Aldo Chircop (Associate, Oceans Institute of Canada): I am director of the marine affairs program at Dalhousie University. I am also at Dalhousie Law School and an associate of the Oceans Institute of Canada.

I have one main point to make, Mr. Chairman, and two other subsidiary points. I apologize that the two subsidiary points did not appear with the brief you have in front of you.

Perhaps I could start with the first point, which relates to the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. It is really not touched upon by the act as proposed, but it would certainly be affected.

What do I mean here? The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Canada does intend to accede to, has a provision that enables states to take additional environment protection, as it were, in ice-covered areas. These are an especially sensitive environment. This is article 234 of the Law of the Sea convention. This article is worth pointing out because it is in fact in the Law of the Sea convention as a result of Canadian lobbying during the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.

The conference then agreed that ice-covered areas do need special protection. Well before the exclusive economic zone was accepted as international law, Canada was already exercising a 100-nautical-mile jurisdiction over the Arctic specifically for this purpose - special environmental jurisdiction over ice-covered areas.

The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act in a certain sense has been overtaken, but perhaps there is something that needs to be said here. When Canada does in fact declare an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles, it will in essence add an additional 100 nautical miles beyond what the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act covers in the Arctic. There is a strong argument to be made here, on the basis of article 234 of the Law of the Sea convention, to extend the jurisdiction that the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act provides over Arctic waters.

The way to do this is very simple: simply provide another amending clause of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and amend the definition of Arctic waters in section 2 of that act, and basically extend the jurisdiction from 100 to 200 nautical miles. That would be one way of correcting that. Otherwise, we will not address that. We will end up with two types of environmental regimes in the Arctic: the first would be addressed by the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, and the next 100 miles would be covered in a more general sense under the Oceans Act.

That, Mr. Chairman, is the first point. There are two other subsidiary points.

One is to elaborate a little on a point made by David VanderZwaag in relation to clauses 29 and 30 of the bill as it stands, the development and implementation of an oceans management strategy and the development of management plans.

It seems to me that somehow this requirement does not take into consideration that Canada has fundamentally very different marine environments. The Arctic is very different from the west coast, from the east coast, and indeed within these there is an argument to say that there are different marine regions. It would be very important for a strategy that is supposed to be relevant to be sensitive to the different types of environments we have. Such a strategy should be required to be region-sensitive, regional in approach.

The last subsidiary point relates to clauses 32 and 33 of the bill. These provisions relate to the implementation of integrated management plans and cooperation and agreements, including consultation the minister may enter into. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is with the word ``may''. This is discretionary language. The minister here should perhaps be required to do something more. The minister perhaps should be ``required''. I would suggest stronger language, perhaps ``shall''.

The reason for this, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans cannot possibly hope to develop an oceans management strategy and implement it simply on the basis of what that ministry does. The assistance and cooperation of the other agencies is needed, and as such the minister should be required to consult with the other agencies.

.1545

We should keep in mind here that although coordination of oceans activities would remain a responsibility of the minister, the fact is there are other very important oceans responsibilities that will remain with other departments. One example is the Department of Transport, which will still have responsibility, primarily through the ships' safety division, over issues that relate to vessel-source pollution.

Clearly here the need for coordination is essential and should not be simply left at a discretionary level.

Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman and hon. members. Thank you.

The Chairman: Don't move. Stay there. I want to talk to you first. Is there enough room at that table for your other colleagues to pull in?

Mr. Robert Chisholm (MLA (Halifax - Atlantic), Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia): Mr. Chairman, I was on the schedule for 4:20 p.m., and unfortunately I have to be in the valley in about an hour. I just wanted to say I would like an opportunity at some point to appear before the committee.

I am here primarily to support the statement from the Nova Scotia fisheries associations of the Nova Scotia round table of October 23. I think Mr. Boudreau and Mr. Cameron MacKenzie will be making some statement on that.

The bottom line is that I can't stay, and I would like the opportunity to appear at some other point, if that's possible.

The Chairman: Well, it is possible. I'd like to hear your comments, because I'm not sure how correct they are, based on some of the newspaper reports. We may be able to clarify that. We'll have departmental people here a little later.

Robert, we'll find a way to get this done, because I think it's important that your positions are heard.

Mr. Chisholm: And corrected if they're wrong.

The Chairman: When are you leaving for the valley?

Mr. Chisholm: I have to go now.

The Chairman: We're sorry. We had some technical trouble starting up. We have it settled.

Have a safe trip to the valley. We will ensure that there's some way we can get you on the record.

Mr. Chisholm: Thanks very much.

The Chairman: Thanks.

Let's get back to our witness.

I'll just call you Aldo; is that okay?

Dr. Chircop: That's beautiful.

The Chairman: I can't mispronounce that, I don't think, so we'll stay with it.

Aldo, I'm glad you mentioned the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. One of the concerns we've had as members is while this act provides a good framework and a proper first step, as the previous witness, the admiral, said, some related pieces of legislation, for whatever reason, have not been consolidated in this act. There's actually a long list of legislation that I would have preferred to at least have understood why it wasn't included in the act.

But this one in particular, because the Arctic environment, as you would know better than we do, is extremely fragile. Rather than have various ministries with various responsibilities, this is one of the pieces of legislation that I would suggest should be further consolidated into the relevant clauses of this new oceans act and become the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Can you give me some comments on that? It's currently with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, whose primary job is something other than the protection of the ocean environment. Can you tell me if you believe the whole act should be over here with the ministry to give it a little sharper edge?

Second, you also mentioned some sections of legislation dealing marine transportation. Should those also be incorporated into this act or should we leave them to another minister?

.1550

Dr. Chircop: Mr. Chairman, that's a hot potato. One of the problems with the process behind this act has been perhaps insufficient thinking as to how the various mandates of the various agencies would in fact be affected. That is the kind of question that really needs to be thought out. I would think twice before throwing an answer at the committee without really thinking it out.

I think the point that needs to be made is that, yes, a number of pieces of legislation have not yet been touched by the act, and since the Oceans Act is an integrated piece of legislation, there should be at least some consistency.

Now, admittedly there is going to be in some institutions an overlap as a result of this integrative exercise. The act may not perhaps resolve all those in advance, given the timeframe you're looking at. But I think the point in relation to the definition of the Arctic waters is an important one.

I might refer to other points made by David. Given that at this point we're looking only at fixing the act as much as possible to get it out there, rather than review the act in its bill stage, as I understand it, it really makes a lot of sense to make sure there is a review section in the act, perhaps two years down the road. That will buy the minister some time. But the minister should then be required to commence a process of review that would examine all these questions and somehow would buy more time to really think it out in consultation with the stakeholders affected.

The Chairman: I agree with you, but the only thing I sort of don't buy is.... This act didn't come about overnight. This has been widely discussed. There have been a couple of promises of an act over the last number of years. Admiral Crickard, in his presentation, reviewed some of the history of that.

I guess I'm always afraid of framework legislation that is not specific enough, because sometimes what you think you're getting by way of regulation is entirely different by the time your regulator is finished with it. I agree wholeheartedly that there should be a review mechanism and a compulsory reference back to parliamentary committee. This, after all, is what we're supposed to be doing here. It would then compel the minister and the ministry and the other ministers to ensure that the principles of the act and the processes that are started do reach some conclusion.

But I want to go back over this whole business about whether or not there's enough included here. We have some sections - I just mentioned Indian and Northern Affairs, the Arctic Waters Pollution Protection Act, which governs regulations controlling the deposits of waste north of 60_.

We may not be able - it may be outside the scope of our committee's examination of this bill - to come in and make those recommendations at report stage, but it certainly is not outside the responsibilities of this committee to make further recommendations or an interim report that says, ``Here's your bill back - and by the way....'' For instance, there was compelling evidence that said this particular piece of legislation should have been included; I'd like to get the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs in to explain to us why they think it shouldn't be. As well, some other portions may impact on the north. That would be under the Department of the Environment, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, part I, which establishes marine environmental quality guidelines. That is still in the COA. It's been passed over to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, But part VI of CEPA, dealing with ocean disposal, is not over with the act. It's not here. So that's still not over with the minister.

How would you propose that we handle this? You indicate that perhaps there hasn't been enough time. I think we've had lots of time. I'd be interested to hear from somebody with your credentials as to whether or not some of these things should be considered by this committee as a recommendation for inclusion under the act.

Dr. Chircop: Perhaps some my colleagues here have some views on this as well, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. VanderZwaag: Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I could offer a couple of comments on that.

I agree with Aldo Chircop that this really does raise one of the most difficult issues. It gets so complex with all the various statutes, all the various regulations. I think it really does need a very detailed, independent look at how one integrates. I suppose the act promises a lot of integration, but you're quite right; when in fact you read the act, it does very little in the way of integration.

We can think of a couple of approaches. If you look at what some provinces have done, for example, in their legislation, clearly the way to go under provincial legislation is to integrate; you repeal a lot of previous stagnant statutes and bring them under one statute where you find all that legislation.

.1555

Of course, what makes the oceans so complex is that you have all the various levels of government plus various types of legislation, some on environment and some on natural resources management, like fisheries. This makes it extra complicated. I think it would be heroic and courageous, and I think a lot of Canadians would support integrating at this point, if you can find the time to do it.

The fall-back, as I was suggesting and I think Aldo was suggesting, is maybe that with the national marine conservation strategy, you put as one of the checklist requirements that you must come up with further recommendations on how to further integrate decision-making in the coastal zone. In other words, if you set up a process for that thinking to occur, perhaps with the assistance of academics, NGOs and industry making their views known.... I think you need a process, and probably more of it can be done just like that, with a snap of a finger. That's the position you'll find yourself in. It's a very complicated area down the line.

The Chairman: So you would be in favour of a recommendation for an ongoing consultative process that would review other pieces of legislation as well as other areas of responsibility as with provincial governments and coastal management. Rather than do it, say, in three years' time, the committee will look at this for three weeks and then get on with life for another two years. You would recommend some type of ongoing process between now and the first review.

Mr. VanderZwaag: Yes, and my suggestion was that you put it as a checklist. You have a list of requirements that this national ocean strategy will be required to do. One of the things it should be required to do is to promote, recommend and consider better ways to integrate coastal management in Canada. That was a priority that should be taken as part of the national oceans strategy development. Then this comes back in a couple of years for review to this committee to see where it's gone, and then maybe you have to go back and amend the legislation at that point.

It seems to me that then you set up a process and you don't get into the difficulty of spending two years trying to do it yourself. It's going to be very complicated to come up with the resolution to this problem.

The Chairman: Before I go to the other members, Phillip, I told you not to get far from the table. You were talking about science and the independence of science. Can you help me out a little bit?

My riding being Dartmouth, we have a lot of ocean science taking place over at BIO. One of the concerns I had prior to this bill coming in was that when there is ocean science in a department that does other things, such as the Department of the Environment, and a time of fiscal restraint and program consolidation comes, sometimes the departments will cut back to their core business. What I'm concerned about when you deal with marine or ocean science is that when a program is in another department, where it's not part of what I would consider to be the core responsibilities, it's usually the first to get cut and it usually suffers the heaviest cuts.

I wanted to see this new act consolidate as much as possible the responsibility for science within a single department. You raised the issue, however, of the independence of the science. I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If I look in the federal jurisdiction and the work that's currently under way with ocean science, it's all being directed by some ministry. Could you help me out with this? I'm a little confused.

Mr. Saunders: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your impulse, and I don't want to overstate the case for the other side.

What it comes back to is how we define what we're trying to integrate. I think what we're trying to integrate here is ocean management, not necessarily integrate all functions within a particular department. I agree that the budgetary point is a problem, because people will lose what they regard as non-core, but I'll get back to that in a moment.

As a starting point, it may be feasible, for example, under a consolidated act like this to assign responsibility for different parts to different ministers. I say that because if we're trying for integrated management as opposed to just an integrated department - and they're two different things - you may find that the Department of the Environment has the necessary expertise to carry out certain functions in the oceans. They will have to have that expertise for other purposes, whether or not you give them the power under this proposed act. So what may appear to be a consolidation and a savings turns out not to be, because you end up both having to still have that capacity. Those things need to be examined very carefully. Ocean dumping and control of land-based sources of marine pollution would be examples.

On the science issue, I think what you're saying in a way supports part of my concern. Within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, if we apply that same reasoning, what becomes the core tends to be that which is most driven by visibility, naturally, by the politics of the day and by the bureaucratic concerns. As soon as you merge fully the scientific functions with the management functions, I think the science tends to become the tail on the management dog. That may be all right in the short run, but I think we're now seeing the effects of that. Things were sacrificed as non-core because they weren't directly contributing to today's management effort.

.1600

The reason I speak of the independence is not so much on a department versus department basis, but more on the type of science that gets done and how the priorities get assigned.

I think, for example, from talking to scientists who were involved, that they might have done different things in terms of their choices of research on cod stocks a number of years ago, but they couldn't; the resources weren't there for that. As for some independent body, I recognize that they would have budgetary threats as well, but I think the gains are greater if you have something like that, simply because you have the possibility of independently directed research that is guided by the science and not by those day-to-day concerns.

That's more what I was getting at. I don't know if that answers your question fully or not.

The Chairman: I think you answered my question, but I'm still rather confused because I'm trying to put your comments in the context of the current regime of operation for science.

I see most science that's being done by the federal government to be somewhat directed by the policies of the department and of their program directors. So I don't see that this would be any different. If we consolidate the responsibility for marine science with the minister, I would think it would give that particular minister a greater responsibility to ensure that the breadth-and-depth marine science that has to be done is indeed done.

I do understand what you're saying. You're saying that if that's done, there's a greater risk that when cuts come, it gets into core business such as stock assessment instead of some of the other scientific work that is valuable.

Mr. Saunders: That's right, and we may miss things. What I'm suggesting is not so much an extension or consolidation of the existing situation, but something different.

Yes, there is science being done in Environment. I think that is an example of a case where, for example, certain types of environmental research might be set aside, and yet turn out later to be very important although you didn't realize it at the time. I'm thinking even beyond that, or maybe older than that, back to models like the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, which operated on a different form of research and far more independently, and had in a way the luxury to undertake forms of science that, although they may seem esoteric to a policy-maker today, might in the end turn out to be more valuable to the management effort. That's more my concern.

The Chairman: All right. Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells: My first question is going to be for David VanderZwaag. David, you're pretty hard on this piece of legislation, and I wonder if you see any redeeming features in it that on a positive note you might want to comment on. Your initial comment was very disappointing, and you went from there. I'm looking for something that may be positive in it.

Mr. VanderZwaag: Thank you. I appreciate the ability to come back and perhaps fill in that other part of my vision. Certainly there are lots of positive things in this legislation, and we should congratulate the government for coming forward with this legislation at this point in time, albeit quite a few years after the original promise in 1987.

On the positive side, clearly it's going to be laying out our zones of jurisdiction in line with the Law of the Sea convention, and we are going to have a national oceans act. It does put up the priority of oceans on the national agenda where it should be, so I think there is a very positive side there.

I think the idea of a national oceans strategy in concept is a good one. It will hopefully develop a process for thinking through how we can better manage the oceans. So there are a lot of positive things there.

However, I think overall we should look at this as a opportunity. Not many countries really do have ocean acts. Canada can now take the lead and really show other countries around the world how one does take sustainable development in the principle seriously. A lot of thinking has to be done, but the opportunity is there. I'd hate to see this opportunity lost where we can't at least push a bit further, in a more concrete way, what exactly this proposed act is going to do. I'm coming back to its faults and weaknesses, but it does, for example, not set up much in the way of process in terms of marine protected areas.

Again, there is strength there. We can now pass regulations by Governor in Council to protect areas, but again, there is something missing. I'm always one who is a bit optimistic but also looks at the pessimistic. I think you have to be a realist as well. We should get the best we can.

.1605

Mr. Wells: I noticed that when a number of presenters were making their comments they had lots of paper in front of them. We have a four-page brief that was presented, with about a page from each person, and I'll go back and read the Hansard of this hearing, but do you have anything in any form that you could send us that will fill in some of the other gaps?

You have a very short period of time and it's a very large and complicated piece of legislation. Is there other material that you plan to send to us? I know you're experts in this area and I'd like to have the benefit of some of the information you have that we don't have.

Mr. Saunders: We were asked to keep it as short as possible, which was painful for the lawyers, I guess.

Everybody had a few more notes, and certainly there seem to be some other documents that we avoided including because of the impression that it was to be as short as possible. I could expand a bit on mine; I shouldn't speak for the others.

Mr. VanderZwaag: Certainly additional comments could be put in.

The other question is whether there's additional time that might be considered at some point to have additional input. We had a very short consultation. It's not easy to cover all these topics in a very short period of time.

The Chairman: On that particular issue, a number of studies were referred to. I'm not sure if it was you, David, or the next witness who referred to them.

You guys talk as fast as I do. Our researcher here could not keep up. His hands are fast, but they're not that fast. So what I would suggest, to follow up on Mr. Wells's statement, is that before you get up again, maybe you could refer us to those documents. You referred to the New Zealand act of 1991. We can get that up here.

What else did they have, Alan?

Mr. Alan Nixon (Committee Researcher): The OECD coastal zone management document and the Noordwijk guidelines.

The Chairman: Maybe at the end we could get clarified on that. If there's additional information, please send it to the clerk today so that we as a committee can read it. If we need further information, we'll call you after we get through it.

We'll go back over to Derek.

Mr. Wells: I want to follow up on that, Phillip. The caution to keep it short is fair, but some of us have a very real interest in this topic. We want to get into a little more than the superficial end of it. We want to get into some of the changes you're suggesting. If you can share it with us, some of us will in fact take the time to read it.

For clarification on the point David Copp made, we'll go back to clause 28.

As the chairman said, you tried to put a lot in a short period of time. I don't totally understand your objection to clause 28 and the statement that the bill does not apply to rivers and lakes. Perhaps, going a little slower, you could explain again why you think this should apply to rivers and lakes, which are in provincial jurisdiction by and large.

Mr. Copp: One of the things that is always a conundrum here is the concept of conditional constitutional jurisdictions when you get into areas such as the environment. Of course this area failed to have its own constitutional head for who has the authority over the environment, but rather is an ancillary matter that arises when the federal and provincial governments are doing things they have the authority to do.

For example, if one accepted that rivers and lakes are clearly provincial.... They aren't when you're putting into them substances that are deleterious to fish and it turns out the fish frequent those lakes, because then of course the section of the Fisheries Act of Canada that prohibits that is indexed and the federal fisheries officer goes out and lays his prosecutions.

So one of the difficulties of integrated coastal zone management, when you bring it home to Canada, is how you begin to fit it into the constitutional record of Canada's statute and the cases on it. Perhaps the only thing one can say with certainty is you're not going to be able to perform effective integrated coastal zone management unless you have a collaborative response at the federal and provincial levels, and I might add at the municipal level as well.

Much of what goes on that affects coastal zone activities has to do with land use in municipalities and areas of human concentration, which by and large has devolved down to municipal authorities, certainly in the urban context.

.1610

Carrying that forward, this part does not apply in respect of rivers and lakes. Unfortunately, it didn't come with a little explanatory note as to why that clause was really included and written in exactly that language.

One could suspect that it really had to do with setting up an envelope of jurisdiction, whether a legislative jurisdiction or an administrative jurisdiction. These are the various departments and agencies of the federal government. But it is a rather categorical statement. I suppose if you're trying to look at how integrated coastal zone management fits into this statute - because I despair that there's no other federal statute it could really fit in as a home statute, and there isn't going to be one in the near future that I know of - I don't know how integrated coastal zone management can be practised effectively if rivers and lakes are excluded completely from the application of the act.

Now, that's different from the federal government usurping, or attempting to usurp, a blanket jurisdiction over those bodies of water. I think it's quite clear that you can't do it. Nevertheless, it means that a collaborative agreement - at least it could be interpreted to mean this - that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans works out, and that includes a river or a lake vis-à-vis a regional cooperative program for integrated coastal zone management, might be subject to be harpooned on the fact that it includes something of which the minister has no jurisdiction to enter into, because that agreement is supported by part II of the Oceans Act. Part II does not apply in respect of rivers and lakes.

If that clause were, for example, simply not there, I don't know how that would damage the constitutional purity of the statute. If you put the opposite in, that this part for greater certainty does apply in respect of river and lakes, there might be an uproar or apprehension that this representated an attempted usurpation of general jurisdiction, but that surely is not going to survive constitutional challenge.

I'm not recommending that the converse be put in there, but that's rather categorical if it was to mean - I guess you could put it in that term - to reassure that there wasn't the federal assertion of general jurisdiction over fresh water. But this is language that goes beyond that. It means, to me, that the part doesn't apply.

Now, if ``oceans'' means blue salt water, who cares whether it applies? But that seems to negate what I'd hoped would be an object, that is, to be able to facilitate integrated coastal zone management.

The question of where estuaries end and rivers begin is often a difficult one. Ecosystems: Mother Nature has not been aware of the intention of Parliament to include clause 28. Its ecosystems haven't developed on a clear demarcation that the ecosystem ends where a river begins.

Is that of assistance, Mr. Wells?

Mr. Wells: Yes, it is. I wanted you to expand on that because we had one previous day of hearings, and that issue was raised at that time as well. So you are being consistent with what we've heard in the past. I anticipated what your answer would be, but I just wanted to have it on the record, because this is what we'll go back and refer to.

You're recommending that we basically eliminate clause 28 altogether. Is that correct?

Mr. Copp: I don't think the constitutional validity - and again, I'm not a constitutional specialist, but I can't imagine this - of the Oceans Act would be impaired if clause 28 were not there. There might well be some operational questions from time to time as to how far upriver the minister exercising authorities would go, but I would like to think that when the minister was exercising not a legislative authority but rather participating in a collaborative plan for integrated coastal zone management, with the agreement and signatures of the provinces, it at least would ensure that the agreement was not going to turn out to be void or that the minister would not turn out to be nude of any authority to enter into that agreement because of the existence of clause 28 in its present form.

Mr. Wells: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say thank you to these presenters. I found the presentations excellent and very informative. A lot of work has gone into this even though your time has been short. I think we all appreciate it.

The Chairman: I want to thank the witnesses. I do encourage you to be more specific in writing, if you can, on some of the recommendations. The committee is very serious about making sure that when this piece of legislation goes forward, it's as good as you can get right now. None of us believe we should say, ``Well, we could have put that in, but...'', or, ``We could have taken that out, but we'll leave it to somebody else''. We don't feel that way at all.

.1615

As a matter of fact, we were hoping we would have a fairly massive pre-study on this bill so that some of the things that were discussed today could have easily found their way into the legislation. We're somewhat stuck at this point, because there are enough lawyers at the other end.

We can only do certain things with this bill, but we do have certain powers as a committee to report what we want outside of this legislation. I think that some of what you've told us today we're going to find in that report.

So I want to thank you. Please send us any of the documentation you've referred to that you think would be of interest. If we do have a requirement, I hope you will be available to talk to us again. Thank you, guys.

We have Cameron MacKenzie there, president of the Area 18 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association. Following him we have Joseph Boudreau, from Nova Scotia Fish.

We'll start off with Cameron MacKenzie. For those at this end who don't know, Cameron, could you explain to us who you are, and for the record describe the Area 18 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association for us.

Mr. Cameron MacKenzie (President, Area 18 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association): I come here probably wearing many hats. I'm currently the president of the area 18 crab fishermen. That's a fishing zone in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Our group has 30 members, and that's the total number of fishermen within that zone. We're not in what we call the heart of the crab stock - we're in a fringe area - but all the fishermen within that particular area have formed the organization and 100% of them are dues-paying, contributing members of that organization.

As well, I come to this committee with the experience of having sat on ARC, which was a senior policy advisory group to the minister for a number of years until it got convenient to disband...give the minister proper information.

I guess they call me the godfather of the bona fide licensing policy. It is sort of the motherhood word that everybody connected with fisheries keeps using. They want to use the word ``bona fide''. They want to use, I guess, the reputation that came with that particular piece of policy, but they have done everything in their power, from the politicians down to the bureaucrats, to destroy that particular piece of policy.

I did not prepare a brief for this aspect of it because I come here out of great disappointment, frustration, and I guess plain disgust with Parliament, parliamentarians, and the process that is taking place with the fishermen nowadays.

I would just add a very interesting experience, as far as the Constitution goes, with the exercise in Quebec. Everybody looks at the 50-50. I look at the loudest voice in the referendum, the 80,000-odd people who showed up and voted and spoiled their ballots because they're frustrated with both sides. That speaks the loudest voice of all.

I look at this piece of legislation, and after 22 years in the fishery and 22 years of fighting on behalf of fishermen, I see no protection in this legislation for fishermen. All I see is that the minister is going beyond democratic authority. He can go and make any deal with any group of people he wants and this new act is going to sanctify it. Right now he does not have the legislative authority to do so. He's been going ahead and doing it anyway, but legally he does not have that authority. He's going ahead, and the fishermen that he can't get rid of he's going to price out of business.

The fee structure increase they're talking about is nothing more than a $50 million tax grab on the small rural communities of Atlantic Canada, which cannot afford such a tax grab. It's coming out in the form of licensing fees simply because the politicians in Ottawa do not have the gall or the honesty to call it a tax grab. I think the Canadian public is taxed beyond our means now. So what's left you're going to take away in so-called cost recovery. I'd like to know what's happening to the present taxes that are being taken, let alone the cost recovery. If we're going to zero accountability, maybe we can remove a lot of money from the budget.

.1620

You have 600 fishery officers between two coasts. You have 6,000 employees at DFO. There's an imbalance here somewhere. As much as I may argue with them, I spend most of my life trying to defend the fishery officers, the field officers.

I get extremely frustrated when I look at the committee. I can see you, Mr. MacDonald. You have a job to do; you're appointed by the people in power. I have even less respect for the ones in the opposition parties. The Reform - I have never heard Mr. Manning say anything yet in defence of the inshore fishermen in Atlantic Canada, not once. Would it be strange that his main adviser in fisheries happens to be a former vice-president of Clearwater? Use your own judgment.

I come here not because I have a credibility problem, but I certainly come here out of frustration to make other people aware that they may have one. The fact that this Oceans Act has come so far without proper consultation with the fishermen is a clear indication of the disrespect that our parliamentarians and bureaucrats have for the fisherman.

I'm quite proud of the fishermen in Atlantic Canada. They're some of the hardest-working people in this country. They make a contribution. Nobody else is carrying the economic backbone of all these rural communities.

Maybe in Newfoundland a few years ago, under Joey Smallwood.... He thought it was great to centralize everybody, take them all in the cities. Well, from most cities I've seen or visited, they don't look so well either. At least out in the rural areas you were able to work, you knew who your neighbours were, you contributed, you maintained your churches, your schools, your hockey rinks, your fire halls - whatever structures made up your local communities. It never came from any other industry, and you have no other industry you can put there to take its place. You talk about tourism, but I don't think tourism is going to be the answer.

For me to sit on the shore and not be allowed to catch fish, while multinational companies can pick up the phone and call around the world and see which corporate buddy has a factory freezer trawler with dollar-a-day labour on it to come and catch the fish here, is an insult to me as a Canadian citizen.

Maybe politicians would be a little bit more nervous if it was like back in the 1930s, when they didn't have welfare and UIC to relieve part of the pressure. But I think you see it building. I don't know if Mr. Baker is there or not, but you know, when I look at the news programs coming out of Newfoundland and I see the good people of that province, after 500 years of history in the fishery, marching the streets and begging for just two more weeks of welfare, it's a sad, sad state of affairs.

Maybe you'd like better control of us. There was no more blatant and disrespectful example in the history of this country than what happened to us in the area 18 crab fishery this spring. Against scientific advice - and we brought the scientists before Mr. Francis LeBlanc in Cheticamp - because of the status of the crab stocks, the scientific community strongly recommended that they not upset the apple-cart. But what did they do? They just took 25% of the crab quota that the regular guys fish and they were going to buy votes with it. They didn't give a damn what happened to science or the crab. If you look at the contracts those people had assigned....

The real insult comes from the fact that 25% of that so-called lottery out of the rich crab fishery.... Now, I fished a 50,000-pound quota, not the 500,000-pound quota that the midshore fishes. We're inshore fishermen. What they took, divvied up, and used to buy off the heads of the local organizations representing the fisherman...and I feel bad they're greedy, but we took a few individuals because you wind up with half a dozen on the executive of the Gulf Nova Scotia Crab Company, as it was called.... It happened in P.E.I., it happened in New Brunswick, it happened in Quebec. They skimmed $1.5 million from Nova Scotia, they skimmed $1.5 million from P.E.I., they skimmed $5 million from New Brunswick, and they skimmed $2 million or $3 million from Quebec. They said, yes, there was consultation. There was pressure.

.1625

I get a little frustrated with pressure when a politician promises to take what I have and give it to somebody else, just to buy votes. I get really upset with it, because I've earned everything that I have. Nothing was given to me. Yes, I pay very good wages. I pay a decent share of my income to my crew. I also own a fish company and I pay decent wages to my employees. I might be criticized for that by some factors; they may even try to put me out of business. But I think the resource was being shared to its fullest extent for what we had to work with. We were the only group in the inshore fishery that said there should be a better sharing of the resource. By that we meant not to increase the midshore's quota by 50%, 60%, or 200% over the last couple of years. They went from 7,000 to 20,000 metric tonnes. There should have been a proper sharing program put in place.

I see that earlier on this year your committee was looking at licensing review. The bulk of our licensing policy was accepted by all the fishermen in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It was accepted in writing by the three maritime governments; I still have copies of the letters. It was implemented in 1982. It became the framework for what would have solved 95% of all the problems in the fishery today. This Oceans Act does nothing but disassemble all the basic principles that were put into that policy. And I might add, gentlemen, that policy was non-racial. The aboriginals had every bit of opportunity.

The Chairman: I appreciate the comments you're making, but I'm in a very difficult position as chairman here.

We are examining a very specific piece of legislation, which has been referred to to us. The comments you have made are valid and somewhat representative, I'm sure, of the people in your area, but they don't deal specifically with the legislation.

The issue of the special crab allocation of 25% is one that I think most of our committee members are aware of. When the deputy minister was here not that long ago, there were some questions asked of that. The definition of a core fisherman, professional fisherman, is one that we started to examine as well. But on the issue of fees - and I want to be clear here because we asked this question at the last hearing, and I don't know where this started - there is a sense out in the fishing community that this is a bill that deals with access fees in fisheries, and it doesn't. However, it's out there that it does, and it doesn't. It's not coming from here.

The issue of fees, we expect, will be in another piece of legislation that's coming to us, dealing with amendments to the Fisheries Act, but today we are dealing with specifically a piece of legislation that creates an Oceans Act. Your comments are valid and I don't want to tell you not to have them, but you're putting me in a difficult position because we're specifically mandated to deal with the Oceans Act today.

So do you have some specific comments on that?

.1630

Mr. MacKenzie: I understand that, very much so, but I spent five years going through a court system on a particular fee structure, called dockside monitoring, which was found to be illegal. The minister had no authority to have it implemented. Until it got up into the higher echelons, in appeals and everything else, which I think after...rather than tie up the time of this committee. It really insulted the intelligence of the average, ordinary Canadian as far as the Supreme Court justices go. It really insults the ordinary person.

They do refer...that the minister, in this piece of legislation, can implement fees to recover just about any cost that's going to be covered under the Oceans Act.

The Chairman: Cameron, just so I can give this back to you, this was mentioned by people we had in from the department. This was specifically asked. I think it's on page 21 of the bill, clause 49.

The response was that in effect, this clause says:

So it does not impact on access fees to the fisheries. It's most specifically dealing with marine transportation.

Mr. MacKenzie: It doesn't state that in the act. It just says he may impose fees.

The Chairman: No, I think it's more specific than that. Also:

So that basically says that some of the new powers that are consolidated from, say, coast guard and Transport just allows them to do a cost recovery on those fees, but it doesn't deal with fisheries fees. We anticipate that there will be a piece of legislation that will deal specifically with those types of access fees and we expect there will be plenty of comment at that point.

Am I correct, Mr. Scott?

Mr. MacKenzie: Mr. Chairman, if you go on to clause 50, it says:

It also expands the minister's authority. The minister's authority under the present Fisheries Act is only limited to conservation and protection. He tries to add on socio-economic responsibilities, but neither you nor anybody else is going to find it in the act. He goes ahead and does it, and every time you go to question it, they keep bringing back the absolute discretionary power of the minister.

The Chairman: Cameron, I'm confused on this. I want to get it settled right here and now. You represent fishermen in the area. If you're barking up the wrong tree in this act, let's find out; if not, we'll get corrected.

I have somebody from the department here. I want them to be very specific about what these clauses apply to and whether or not they give any other fee-setting powers to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to the fisheries.

Who have we got here? Can you identify yourselves?

Ms Camille Mageau (Senior Adviser, Oceans Programs Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I'm Camille Mageau.

Mr. Jack Gallagher (Navigation Specialist, Strategic Planning Group, Canadian Coast Guard ): And I'm Jack Gallagher.

The Chairman: Tell us what this means. Mr. MacKenzie seems to think something different.

Ms Mageau: Right now, the minister has the ability to set fees under the ministerial fees order that's subject to the Financial Administration Act. Under that fees order he has a number of types of fees that he has the authority to fix.

.1635

The only difference in the Canada Oceans Act, the only additional fee, would be with respect to products, and you've given examples of products. Another one is with respect to certain regulatory processes that are not provided for in the ministerial fees order. You'll notice that in the Oceans Act there is no provision for regulatory processes, so that is there as a stop-gap measure. There is no provision to impose any new regulatory process. There are products, however, like charts, like certain hard copies, which the minister will have the authority to sell.

That's the only change from the existing mechanism. You won't find it in the Fisheries Act, but you will find it in another statute that is applicable to a whole bunch of other departments as well.

Jack Gallagher, with the Canadian Coast Guard, could perhaps expand on the types of services.

The Chairman: Then why don't you quickly expand, because I think it's important that we understand what this bill does and what it doesn't do so that Mr. MacKenzie can give....

Mr. Gallagher: Good afternoon. There are two things I would point out.

One is that the Canadian Coast Guard does intend to implement the marine services fee under this section of the act.

Second, with clause 50, which deals with rights and privileges and which is of concern to you, it's only rights and privileges that the minister has by virtue of this proposed act. This act does not govern the access to resources that the Fisheries Act does. That's a separate piece of legislation and would have to be dealt with separately. The rights and responsibilities of the minister under this act refer to those coast guard services, science services and hydrographic services that are outlined in part III of the proposed act. The ability to collect fees for products and rights and privileges is in his association with those matters in particular.

The Chairman: Mr. MacKenzie.

Mr. MacKenzie: To a certain extent I was pushed into a corner this year. Our fishermen had to come up and pay for the science on one of our fisheries this year. We were basically blackmailed into it. Unless science is going to be recognized, we're not paying for it. Do away with it. Before I had science, I had an unlimited quota.

The Chairman: Cameron, I just wanted to get that clarified. Thank you to our departmental staff.

The issue you deal with is not an unimportant issue, but it's not dealt with in this bill. It will be in another bill that we expect to come forward.

Mr. MacKenzie: Okay. Does this bill state that this does not cover anything as far as fisheries resources go?

The Chairman: It doesn't cover fisheries resources at all. That's not covered at all in this bill.

Mr. MacKenzie: It doesn't touch it?

The Chairman: No.

Mr. MacKenzie: It doesn't expand the minister's authority within it?

The Chairman: Not within the department...no, it does not give him any further powers under the Fisheries Act at all. Am I correct?

A voice: Yes.

The Chairman: No further powers under the Fisheries Act. This is an act of consolidation of existing legislation. It allows for some fee for service on cost recovery only for some of things like aids to navigation, as with charts.

That being said and done, do you want to have some further comment on the Oceans Act?

Mr. MacKenzie: Well, this was put upon us fairly quickly, as far as when we got the copies of it and when we could get together. It's a bad time of the year. I even took a day off fishing today to make this appearance.

Our interpretation of what this bill is doing, from the information we had - and I think this is part of what Robert Chisholm was going to make - is that it formalizes the mechanisms for the privatization of the resource into the hands of corporations. It specifically excludes any options for fishers to elect representative bodies for the purposes of co-management or self-management. If you go back to the beginning of part II, every appointment to any board is going to be by the minister. Industry is not going to have any say as to who is going to be on any board.

Now, maybe I have the wrong perception as to this bill, but the perception of the fishing industry is that it is another link in the chain that's going to destroy us.

The Chairman: All I can say is that I'm not going to affix any blame for misinterpretation. Mr. Chisholm, who isn't there - he had to go down to the valley - I note is a signature on a petition I received from the Nova Scotia fisheries associations, the round table of October 23.

Mr. MacKenzie: You'll find mine on there too.

.1640

The Chairman: It's unfortunate that some of the issues that are raised there, although they're important, are not related to this bill. They are important issues, but they are not related to this bill.

Cameron, we have Mr. Scott here, who is from the opposition, from the Reform Party. I think he has a comment.

Mr. Scott (Skeena): Cameron, I share your confusion. I was confused when I initially read the bill and when we did an initial analysis of it. It was my understanding, in reading clauses 49 and 50, that this in fact was going to be the bill that opened the door for the minister to increase access fees or licence fees. We asked this question in committee a couple of weeks ago and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans stated unequivocally that this was not the bill that was going to allow increases in access fees, but there were changes to the Fisheries Act coming very soon. We expect them sometime in November, as I understood it. At that time the access fee issue is going to be raised.

So you're right to be concerned about it. I'm very concerned about it. But it's not being dealt with, according to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, under this bill. It is coming and it's coming very soon.

Mr. MacKenzie: I'm extremely concerned because in my case, with the proposed fees, I'm looking at a $4,000 bill before I start fishing next year.

The Chairman: It's not covered in this bill, Cameron.

Mr. MacKenzie: I know it's not covered in the bill. But I'm going to ask you as chairman, would you send a letter to our group, care of me, to state specifically that fisheries resource issues and the ministerial authority thereof are not expanded by the Oceans Act?

The Chairman: On the issues you're concerned with? I'll do that so that there's some clarity. I know that these issues...we were confused as well, as a committee, and that was until we sought some very specific comments on pieces of the legislation.

We'll get a letter off. I do have your petition here.

Mr. MacKenzie: The reason I ask this is that the minister has a great knack for being confused as well, whether it's him or his people, and implementing things they're not allowed to implement, such as the dockside monitoring fees that were in the original part of the court case in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. It got overturned because the people above were reminded who paid their salaries.

The Chairman: Okay, Cameron. I think what we should do at this point is thank you for your presentation. I'll see what assurance we can give you. When the other piece of legislation comes forward, I'll make sure the clerk is in touch with you to give you notice that the bill has been tabled in the House of Commons. I'll also give you a copy of the legislation so that you, on behalf of your group, can review it and give us some comments.

Mr. MacKenzie: Okay, and that is specifically, for example, in clause 32, ``For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans, the Minister may...'' and then ``on his or her own or jointly with another person or body...establish advisory or management bodies and appoint or designate...'' or in the second paragraph, ``recognize established advisory...'' - that has nothing to do with fisheries resource issues?

The Chairman: Yes, it does have something to do with fisheries resource issues because it deals with ecosystem and coastal management plans. It does have to do with that. But on the specific management issues that I know you're interested in with the fisheries, this bill does not deal with that. If you're making the point that the bill should be specific that when these advisory boards are put together, the fisheries interests are looked after, I think that's something we can take note of as a committee.

Mr. MacKenzie: I would like some indication from the committee before this gets into law that we're going to have some kind of protection.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. MacKenzie: There's absolutely nothing in the legislation to protect the fishermen now.

The Chairman: Okay, Cameron. We've taken note of that point and we'll see what we can get done. As I said, when the other piece of legislation gets tabled, we have your address and we'll make sure the clerk gets something sent out to you so you can give us your comment. Thank you.

Mr. MacKenzie: Are any other questions?

The Chairman: I think we're fine. Thank you, Cameron.

.1645

The next group is from Nova Scotia Fish, of which Joe Boudreau is president.

You'll be getting all kinds of television time, Joe, because you were sitting right in behind there, so we could just.... They were hitting parts of you before, but now it's all yours, Joe.

Mr. Joseph Boudreau (Regional Director, Gulf Region, Nova Scotia Fish): I'm not the president of Nova Scotia Fish; I'm one of the regional directors. There are three of us. Don Cunningham, from South West Nova, and George Whelan, from the Cape Breton area, are the others. We divide the province into three different groups. I'm the regional director for the gulf region.

I put together a brief letter that I was going to read, but I don't know if I should do that now or not. You mentioned that the industry was consulted on this Oceans Act, but then you turned around and said you and your members were quite confused about the Oceans Act yourselves. So I think we're all confused now. We're not sure what's in there and what's not in there.

As far as Atlantic Canada is concerned, at the first round table that I appeared at in Nova Scotia with the fishermen's organizations - and specifically those from this province - there was not one group that had a copy or had seen a copy of the Oceans Act, with the exception of the lady who just came in the door here, and she doesn't belong to a fishermen's organization that I know of. So I don't know who you consulted with in the fishing industry

I'll read off my letter and we'll go from there, if you let me go through it.

Here we are again appearing before the Senate committee on a very controversial piece of legislation. And again the government has said it has consulted with the fishing industry. After second reading, this committee, the Government of Canada and the fishery organizations were against the information in Bill C-98 that was getting out to the inshore fishing industry. At least Mr. Crosbie made public that he was going to privatize the fishing industry, doing so on December 18, 1992.

Due to these factors, I have no great pleasure appearing before this committee. The only reason I'm here today is that I hope the information in Bill C-98 will become known to those inshore fishermen who are directly affected by its contents.

Bill C-98's issues - the user fees, who they're going to affect, whether they are going to be for ice-breaking or whatever, the environmental issues, and so on - are very important issues and we have great problems with them. But the greatest concern is that this bill will permit delegation of the actual resource management authority to anyone whom the minister may see fit to nominate for this purpose.

Is that not a fact? Maybe I should ask that before going on, because there is no sense of going any further if that's not a fact.

The Chairman: No. Look, first of all, I am not confused about this bill. I guess the best way to put it is that I'm confused about why there is such confusion about the bill. This bill is fairly straightforward. It deals with the consolidation of a number of programs and responsibilities of the federal government. For the first time ever, it establishes an Oceans Act.

There are a number of issues that I would dearly love to get into with you and other fishermen from the east coast, and we will get into them when the appropriate legislation comes forward. When you deal with access fees, when you deal with privatization of the resource - those are concerns to me and other members of this committee - they are not dealt with here. This deals with something related but different. I'm certainly not going to try to indicate that your concerns aren't valid. I think in many respects they're very valid and have to be debated.

The list of stakeholders that were consulted was fairly extensive, although I don't have the list in front of me. We didn't do the consultations, Joe, because that wasn't our job. The department came up with the bill and it has been referred to us. We want to ensure that any stakeholders who want to have a comment will have a chance to have a comment. But I think some of the issues you'll be raising will be issues that we'll be wanting you to raise when we get the next bill.

So since it's your nickel, I'm going to tell you that perhaps you should continue. We'll take notes because the same committee members are going to deal with the next bill. So go ahead.

Mr. Boudreau: Okay. I'll just make a point just before I go on.

We had a legal opinion of the Oceans Act done by Daley Black & Mareira and Will Mareira dealt with that legal opinion. It's his opinion that it does give the minister the power to delegate actual resource management authority to whomever he wants, whether it be the Province of Newfoundland or whomever. But maybe you don't agree with that.

.1650

If that is the case and the resources can be delegated to a province, to a community or whatever, it has an extreme effect on me and it affects all the inshore fisherman alive in Canada. That's why we're so strongly opposed to this bill.

For that simple point alone - not to mention any of the rest of it - this should have been made well-known to the fishing industry if it is what's going to take place. But here we are after second reading and we're just finding out that this might be the case. If you can clearly state it is not the case, then maybe I'll come back when you do get the legislation for the commercial fishing licence or for the licensing policy.

The Chairman: Let's deal with this. You got an opinion from the law firm. I would appreciate it if you could share that opinion with us, because we're not here to defend the bill. I'm not a lawyer, although we do have some lawyers on this committee, so I'd like to see that, because most of us actually think the bill needs some improvement. In the interim....

Somebody from the department move up here if you could, please. Is there somebody from the department who wants to deal with this very specific case? I don't want people who represent the good deal of the fishing interests of Nova Scotia, as Joe does, going around expressing concern if indeed there's no reason for it. If there is reason for it, I want to have it addressed by the committee. Who do we have here from the department?

Okay, here we go. This is the beauty of television. Let's see what we can get done here.

You'll have to give your name so we have it for the record.

Mr. Barry Rashotte (Director, Atlantic, Resource Allocation Branch, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): My name is Barry Rashotte. I'm in fisheries management with the department in Ottawa.

On the specific question or concern you have about - I think this is what you are referring to - the initiative for partnership or partnering or co-management, that specifically is going to be dealt with in the Fisheries Act. I can tell you that clearly. As far as I know, it is not part of this legislation.

Mr. Boudreau: I don't have the bill here. I only have a copy of it, and some of the pages are missing. But on page 15, clause 32 states:

Mr. Rashotte: Maybe an expert on this bill could answer to what this means. All I'm trying to do is verify that the concerns you have are going to be dealt with in the Fisheries Act amendments, not in this bill.

Mr. Boudreau: Yes, but the problem with it is that this bill here, the proposed Oceans Act, gives the minister the power to deal with it. In the Fisheries Act, we've already lost ground. If the Oceans Act gives the minister the right to delegate the resource to a community or to a province, or puts it on the burner, right out there in front, then he can.... Does it not give the minister the power to do this? Say yes or no. That's all we're asking.

Ms Mageau: No, the intention here is for - and I guess it encompasses a lot of the concerns you've raised - the bill to say something for the purposes of implementing the management plans. Those management plans are to integrate the activities of all the stakeholders, the fishermen being one of the stakeholders, as well as provincial and municipal governments. All of these people are stakeholders. They all have activities in the oceans or that affect the oceans. All of these people are to be brought to a table and are to agree to a management plan for a specific area.

As a fisherman, as a fishing union or as a cooperative of fisherman, you would be a stakeholder. Your representatives would put nominations forward and the minister would.... There has to be a presiding body. There has to be someone who sanctions and says this body now exists. It would be the role of the minister to say who are the members of this board for these purposes. The nominations are put forth by the stakeholders, so there is equal authority there and together they make a decision. They agree on management plans. It does not impede the co-management or the partnership initiatives being put forth in the Fisheries Act. That's a fisheries issue; this is an oceans issue. The fisheries issues are one of these series of issues under the panoply of things going on in the oceans. Does that help?

.1655

Mr. Boudreau: Yes, you just said exactly what I told you a few minutes ago. This can lead to the minister coming down to talk to individuals like me or to other organizations in Atlantic Canada, and then to his going to the next step of setting up the co-management and the partnerships and so on. Is that not true?

Ms Mageau: I gather the partnering is an agreement between partners, and that implies equality in my mind.

Mr. Boudreau: Will this give the minister the right to go to talk to the provinces, to the organizations, to the people in the industry and so on, who have partners in co-management? Is it fair to say that, then?

Mr. Rashotte: Right now, the department and the minister can enter into co-management agreements without any change to any act. As for the change to the Fisheries Act that allows them to enter into true partnerships and that just makes them legally binding on both parties, this doesn't deal with that. This doesn't deal with allocations of fish or who gets fish. This just integrates the fisheries management plan development with the other activities along the coast. And there is then going to be a body, I presume, to integrate all the concerns from all the stakeholders.

Mr. Boudreau: Again, the minister will have the right to set up a partnership or a co-management with some type of resource, whether it be crab, lobster or whatever. The minister will still be responsible for that resource, but the co-management or the partnership will allow that body - we've seen it in the offshore scallop fleet, for example, where they set up a partnership....

We were just blackmailed into a partnership in our crab situation on the science end. The science people came and they told us that if we didn't have the partnership in place by Friday, they wouldn't do our scientific evaluation. They also told us that people who are looking for these partnerships next year want to have a say in the management of that resource.

We think that with these partnerships, the minister will eventually have the authority to set up a partnership with an area 12 crab association, for example, and say, look, you manage that resource, although I'm still responsible for it; you bring the information you have in the crab industry back to me, and then I'll tell you if it's okay for you continue on for another year. I think that in future, and after changes in the other one, this bill will allow the minister to go and set up those partnerships or co-management in the industry with provinces or so on.

Will it or will it not do that?

Ms Mageau: It's not the intention -

Mr. Boudreau: They won't do it?

Ms Mageau: No, it's not the intention of the bill. They're separate initiatives. This initiative would be fit in and considered as part of the overall management plan for that area. I guess that's as much as I can say. It's not our intention to make deals behind anyone's back. This is a process to avoid that.

Mr. Boudreau: I'm not saying that at all. But I am saying this enabling legislation will give the minister the right to set up a partnership with the Province of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia or whatever. Will it or will it not do that in the future?

Ms Mageau: No. The partnerships we're talking about here are information-sharing partnerships. If we want to fill in a gap of knowledge you, as the fisherman, can be brought in as a partner because you can help us collect it. We can analyse it. The province has the labs required. Those are the types of partnerships that we are.... The aim of this thing is to manage the ecosystem, to improve the effectiveness of the way we're each doing our work. It's meant to dovetail our efforts in order to end up with a larger product and a better product.

Mr. Boudreau: Okay. Maybe I should read out what I have here, because I think you'll understand after I'm through.

One of the major problems we have in the industry in Atlantic Canada today in Nova Scotia is exactly that. We have partnerships in science, we have partnerships in enforcement, we have partnerships in a number of things now. They only lead to the partnerships being the way to pay that organization or that group funding so that they will continue along the government lines. That's the problem we have with privatizing the industry. We think you, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, should still be there and be responsible for the resource.

The Chairman: Joe, let's finish, and then I'm going to go to Mr. Scott.

Mr. Boudreau: Okay.

The Chairman: I hope we've alleviated some of the confusion. The comments you make, if not applicable to this bill, are applicable to the general thing that we do as a committee, which is to try to represent the interests of the fishermen and other stakeholders.

.1700

Go ahead.

Mr. Boudreau: I'll continue from where I finished off before. This means the prime decision and resource, in my opinion. The government will be responsible for the resource, but Bill C-98 will allow the government to manage the resource through private partnerships in science and so on.

I would like to explain how the federal government in Canada is being given free rein to privatize our industry. For the government to state that they have a deficit problem and then to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on phoney training, phoney enforcement programs, science and advisory groups.... Those are the very programs inshore fishermen are against. Our organizations are now a part of them and receive not only federal but also provincial funding.

An example is the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. Two of our inshore players on that are Sam Elsworth and Mike Belliveau. There are the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters and the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society in Nova Scotia, which Randy Baker and Sam Elsworth - again - are involved with. There is CanSea, for example, which is doing a lot of our training, and Randy Baker and Sam Elsworth are also involved with that. There is the Nova Scotia Saltwater Sport Fishing and Charter Boat Association. The provincial government is paying for that.

As you look towards the other provinces, you will find in Newfoundland Richard Cashin, Father Des McGrath and Earle McCurdy; and in New Brunswick you'll have individuals like Mike Belliveau and John Kearny. In P.E.I., you have individuals like Rory McLelland, Buck Watts, and Johnny Banks.

Initiatives that were brought forward by DFO, like individual transferable codes, dockside monitoring, professionalization, central fisheries, the Cashin report itself, the aboriginal fishing strategy, and other programs similar to these received backing from organizations supported by government funding.

Inshore fishermen find it extremely strange that the executives of these organizations feel that fishermen should become professionalized or should be forced to be trained by them. Imagine being trained by someone who is supposed to be working for you but who is working against you.

Executives like Cliff Fanning for the Eastern Fishermen's Federation stated in the October 7, 1995 issue of The Cape Breton Post that he endorses the Cashin report, which states that 50% of the inshore fishermen should be taken out of the system and that the UI system is being abused by fishermen and should be changed.

It is not the fishermen who would benefit from these changes. It is the organizations. Fishermen remaining in the industry would be forced to take a training program to become professional in the eyes of the organizations. Since we have mentioned Mr. Fanning.... Maybe I shouldn't go on with this.

But the problem, Mr. MacDonald, is the Oceans Act itself. Nobody heard a damn thing about it until just last week, nobody in the industry in Nova Scotia. We find it unbelievable. You people still haven't clarified for me that the Oceans Act will not give the minister the right to privatize our resource in the long term through this act. If you can put it in writing from your legal adviser and send it to me, stating that will not happen, I will agree with it.

The Chairman: Joe, I'm not a lawyer, but I'll tell you that we view legislation with a cynical eye here. We have all parties represented. It is not our understanding that this bill would allow that to happen in any way, shape or form.

I understand your concern. I note your concern. I think when we get into other pieces of legislation like amendments to the Fisheries Act, we will hear what you said again at that point in time.

I'd like you to provide us with a legal opinion. We could have a look at it and then we can respond. Just because it comes from a lawyer doesn't mean that it's necessarily right.

Mr. Boudreau: That's for sure.

But the other problem is that just because the Oceans Act came from some politicians doesn't mean it's going to protect inshore fishermen.

The Chairman: No -

Mr. Boudreau: As we've seen with every act that came out of the industry, as I stated, the dockside monitoring, ITQs, and all the rest of it, not one of them were of benefit to inshore fishermen. Again, we feel this bill is extremely harmful to inshore fishermen.

The Chairman: Okay. Can you send us that? Maybe you can check to find out if it's proper for you to send that legal opinion, because I would like to respond to it. As for the concerns in your brief, if those concerns are real, we have to respond. If they're not, I think we have to correct it.

Mr. Boudreau: Okay.

Do you want to ask some questions? I'll stay as long as you want.

The Chairman: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott: Hi, Joe. I'm Mike Scott.

Mr. Chairman, it seems that there's some confusion with respect to what this act does and doesn't do. With the greatest of respect to the people who were here saying the intention is not to grant the minister powers with respect to the fishery, I'm still not clear on it. We know that Bill C-98 is going to extend the minister's powers in some areas. I don't think anybody would disagree with that.

.1705

I'm still not clear as to what extent those powers are being increased and whether or not there is any possibility of implications for the Fisheries Act or some of the other issues Mr. Boudreau raised. I think it's worth exploring this just a little bit more to find out exactly what kinds of implications there are between Bill C-98 and the Fisheries Act and the concerns raised by Mr. Boudreau and Mr. Cameron MacKenzie.

The Chairman: I agree. That's why I asked him if he could give us his legal opinion - and I didn't say that facetiously - because I think it would help us by giving us a lawyer's interpretation on the implications.

I think we can pursue that as a committee. We'll look at it and we'll either reaffirm it or debunk it. I think that's important, because the impression is out there and it's something that has to be dealt with.

Mr. Boudreau: And you will back come to us with your legal opinion stating that it's either yea or nay or yes or no or whatever other words you use in your -

The Chairman: You've raised an issue that is worth clarifying. Could you have that sent to us? Send it by fax. Don't send it by mail. The researchers and the clerk can deal with a fax relatively quickly. And we will sit down as a committee, look at this and have it clarified. It's obviously a matter of concern.

Mr. Boudreau: I have one other point about the legislation that's coming up against the Fisheries Act. Do you know what those terms are going to be? Is there anybody in the committee who knows what they are? Is that possible? And when is this stuff coming forward?

The Chairman: Joe, all that we know.... As a committee, we don't get advance warning of this. When the bill is tabled in the House, the opposition critics and the government members are normally notified and a briefing is provided at that time.

The best we have is that it was supposed to happen early in November. The events of the last week and a half may have slowed things down a bit, but I would expect we will have amendments to the Fisheries Act any time now, perhaps within a week or 10 days. At that point in time it will be a matter of public debate, and I think we're going to have very long hearings on this, as well as hearings that may take place in the regions. So as soon as we get it, you'll get it.

Mr. MacKenzie: I have a point of clarification. Protection against the minister's expanded authority is what the industry is looking for. There's no protection stated within the bill, Mr. MacDonald, and that's what we're looking for, something that's going to protect us from an expanded....

The minister already operates under absolute discretionary powers, above and beyond. He's a god. What protection do we have? That's what we're asking.

The Chairman: We have your questions. If you get us that legal opinion, then we have a foundation for the points of view you put forward. We will respond to you on it as soon as we have it.

Okay, guys. Thanks a million.

Mr. Boudreau: Thank you.

Mr. MacKenzie: Thank you.

The Chairman: The next individual we have is here in Ottawa. My God, where are we? She's next.

You others can watch it if you want so you can listen to what she has to say. Have another cup of coffee, Irene.

Ms Irene Novaczek (Fisheries Coordinator, Environmental Coalition of Prince Edward Island): Is it on you?

The Chairman: Okay.

From Area 19 Snowcrab Fishermen's Association we have Deborah M. Baker, barrister and solicitor, who is going to be our next witness.

Ms Deborah M. Baker (Barrister and Solicitor, Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association): Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, before I read our submission, I hope we don't belabour this difficult point, but I attended a round table that Mr. Boudreau, Mr. MacKenzie and Irene attended, and there is enormous confusion about what jurisdiction the Oceans Act gives the minister and what the Fisheries Act amendment is going to do. I think our submission probably has to do with the amendments to the Fisheries Act, but since my clients have paid me to come here, I would appreciate it if the committee would allow me to re-submit this for the record at the time of the hearings, and perhaps read it today so everybody has an idea of the context we're coming from.

.1710

Also, with respect to the Oceans Act, although we may not be able to see co-partnering with fishermen with respect to some of the jurisdictional areas in the Oceans Act today, I think there may be co-partnering, for example, in enforcement and scientific data collection. In fact, fishermen may be co-partnering to get some of the hydrographic data that's required under the Oceans Act. So in that context I think we still have something valid to say.

The Chairman: I don't know how this confusion ever arose.

Ms Baker: It is enormously confusing. Our group is confused and the round table is confused.

The Chairman: Has a briefing been given by the department for a round table?

Ms Baker: No.

The Chairman: Did anybody from the department come and...?

Ms Baker: Robert Chisholm was the facilitator.

The Chairman: He is from the New Democratic Party opposition.

Ms Baker: Yes.

The Chairman: Has the briefing been given by the New Democratic Party opposition about a federal statute? Is that what has caused the confusion?

Ms Baker: I think there were opinions given; there were no briefings.

The Chairman: Okay. It's unfortunate that was done -

Ms Baker: It's very unfortunate.

The Chairman: - and perhaps I'll be talking to Mr. Chisholm at some point to tell him before he does that he should maybe seek some input from the department. We have to do that when a piece of legislation comes up just to clarify it.

There's probably some confusion, because there are a number of agenda items under way by the department, such as the access fees. Because there has been some consultation on that, I think that's where the overwash is taking place here.

Ms Baker: Without proper information, a lot of negativity will be generated for the fisheries amendment and this act, which is totally unnecessary.

The Chairman: You're here, so whatever you say that doesn't apply to this bill but will apply to the next bill -

Ms Baker: Turn your other ear on.

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms Baker: On behalf of the Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association of Cheticamp, Nova Scotia, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee for showing their interest in our comments and concerns. We hope your interest in what fishermen have to say will continue in the future, as fishermen and fishing communities embark with DFO as co-adventurers in a new oceans management strategy.

The Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association, SCFA for short, was formed in 1984 and is presently an incorporated body under the laws of Nova Scotia. The association has 74 members, all of whom are licensed snow crab fishermen, and this includes three native band licences. The members harvest crab along the southern inshore region of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, also known as the western shore of Cape Breton.

All of the association members are owner-operators who hire two or three crew members during the crab harvesting season. Many of the members have a great deal of experience in the fishing industry, and many hold lobster and groundfish licenses.

Our primary reason for appearing before you today is to show this committee our support for the minister for his tremendous initiative in drafting legislation that for the first time in Canada's history takes a holistic and collaborative approach to the management of Canada's vast and diversified coastal resource base.

We understand that there may be some who appear before, or make submissions to, this committee who are not as enthusiastic as we are. Some will claim to speak for fishers, some will suggest changes in the proposed legislation, and some will even attempt to delay the passing of this legislation or stop it altogether. But having voluntarily participated in management strategies for the snow crab fishery in our area, we have first-hand knowledge of the benefits that have accrued from co-management, not only to us but to other members of the community.

Time and time again we have voluntarily given up portions of our individual quotas to promote the conservation of stock and share with other fishermen in our community. We have supported and voluntarily participated in dockside monitoring, and this year we have signed a contract with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that requires us to financially contribute to scientific studies of the crab stock.

We have shown that while so-called professionals and bureaucrats can come up with elaborate programs that are supposed to bring about solutions for certain perceived problems, the fishermen who have a direct and vested interest in the resource and the community are most efficient and astute in devising appropriate solutions to the real problems.

.1715

Just this past spring, when faced with a proposed pilot project to redistribute income from our group to some unlicensed fishermen, we developed a plan that resulted in providing crab harvesting opportunities to many more unlicensed fishermen and provided greater protection to the resource than DFO had anticipated. We are proud of our achievements in this area and are grateful that DFO listened to our concerns and helped us achieve a better result for all.

We believe that the benefits of applying a centralized and top-down bureaucratic model to the fishing industry have run out. If we and our children's children are to enjoy future benefits from Canada's great ocean resource base, it is imperative that not only we as fishers take responsibility for stewardship, but that the government take a more active role as a listener and implementer of policy rather than a purveyor of programs.

No one understands better than a fisherman that DFO programs have been driven by the interests of constituencies rather than the interests of those directly affected by them, and by politics rather than responsible management policies. By and large, DFO programs have not had the ability to disappear when appropriate and have rarely been resource-driven or sensitive to resource needs. Rather, they have been driven by politicians' needs to get re-elected.

As a result, DFO programs have regularly resulted in fragmented service delivery systems and resource depletion. We wholeheartedly agree with Minister Tobin's A Vision for Ocean Management, wherein he stated: ``We must turn away from partial ad hoc and short-term expedient measures which have resulted in resource over-exploitation''. Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association members look forward to participating as full partners and responsible citizens in shaping a new vision for our role and government's role in the management of our coastal resources.

With respect to Bill C-98, the proposed Oceans Act, we have a few specific comments and concerns, and we'll make these also with respect to the amendments to the Fisheries Act. Clause 33 in part II allows the minister the power to coordinate and facilitate management strategies and initiatives, which specifically gives him or her the authority to ``enter into agreements'' and is a significant broadening of the ministerial authority heretofore given under the Fisheries Act. We hope this clause anticipates public-private partnering agreements with respect to the provision of services and the management of the fish stocks.

Subclause 33(2) allows for the minister to ``consult with interested persons''. It is our position that rather than giving the minister the discretion whether or not to consult with interested groups, the legislation should make it mandatory that he consult with those who have a demonstrable vested interest. It is our position that if co-management and partnering are to have any real meaning, a consultative process must be mandatory.

It is our further position that far too much deference is given to the opinions and positions of people who claim to have an interest in all manner of public issues, when in fact all they have is an intellectual or spiritual interest. If such people are to be considered true stakeholders and given an opportunity to influence policy, then we say let them put their money where their mouth is. Then and only then will there be equitable opportunities for the real stakeholders, those who have chosen to make an investment in the resource and an investment in their futures, to express their opinions and voice their concerns. Their concerns have real probative value because they come from experience, and the proponents face the probability of incurring real and measurable loss if management strategies fail.

We find the wording set out in part III, clause 49, wherein the minister is authorized, subject to Treasury Board regulations, to fix fees for a service or use of a facility, to be ambiguous. We can find no definition of a facility and would question whether such fee setting should not be subject to some exclusionary provisions so fees for a facility, which are provided for under the terms of a partnership agreement for example, will be set by the partners to the agreement.

.1720

We would request clarification of this clause and request some assurance that this would not give the department the opportunity to double-tax, so to speak.

Clause 50, which also gives the minister the ability to charge fees for products, rights and privileges, also gives us some grave concerns with respect to partnering agreements and double fee structures. Our understanding of public-private partnering is that many services that have heretofore been provided by the government's largesse may be contracted out to the private sector. The rationale for divesting some of these service responsibilities is to decrease cost and thus reduce the necessity for charging fees.

In cases where fishermen pay for the cost of services such as dockside monitoring, data collection, and scientific research, we take the position that fees for products, rights and privileges, if they are with respect to those services, must be adjusted accordingly or blatant discrimination and the imposition of double jeopardy will result.

The viability of Canada's fishing industry depends to a large extent on its ability to compete in foreign markets. Some of the fisheries, like the snow crab fishery, depend almost entirely on foreign markets. As we undergo the devolution of government and subsequently take on additional responsibilities and costs, we urge that the department be vigilant and responsible in its divestment so that the added cost of co-management does not threaten our competitive position abroad.

Data collection, market studies, and foreign diplomacy must remain in the hands of government, for while we may be able to help row the ship of state under the proposed regime, government must still do the steering.

Finally, while we applaud this new legislation, we see that it is very broad in scope and much has yet to be determined by Order in Council. As Minister Tobin said, he has identified the playing field, but it will be up to the players to define the specific mechanisms, the planning, and the management structures, guidelines, and standards required to bring about the sustainable use of the oceans and their resources.

We, the members of the Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association, who have already demonstrated the positive and productive role that fishers can play in co-managing the resource, implore the government to give us, the fishermen of this country, a proactive role in the consultative and regulation-making process and a recognition of our stake in the resource.

For more than a century we have been treated as though nature just bestows fish upon us to the exclusion of all other citizens, when in fact we buy fish by investing in vessels, gear, and our labour. We are the only group of consumers that has no insurance against our investment and no legislative protection regarding our interest. We have been treated as annual tenants with no assurance of tenure from one season to the next, yet we are expected to be stewards and protectors of the resource. We have been treated as though we have no valid opinion about or knowledge of the resource, yet time after time fishermen have proven science wrong.

We feel that this new legislation and proposed changes to the Fisheries Act have finally given us a chance not only to be heard but to actively participate in our own destiny. We look forward to being able to fulfil this opportunity.

The Chairman: I want to thank you. That's an entirely appropriate presentation. I think it dealt with some of the issues of co-management and the interests that have to be consolidated under legislation.

I think most of the committee would agree that we're all worried when too much is left to regulation, but the comments you made, specifically about the interest of the fishermen in the development of management plans in the marina resources, are absolutely right on, in my view. It's exactly what this bill has to do. This bill has to set out that there are certain interests. Fishermen certainly are one of the major interests, and I do understand and agree with you when you indicate that far too often in the past they've been seen only as tenants, but they're also expected to be stewards of the resource.

We've heard time and time again here at this committee from fishermen who have told us that if anybody had bothered to listen to them they could have told them that certain species were in trouble. If anybody had bothered to listen to them, they would have said that with the introduction of licensing of new catch technologies, the stocks would be in trouble and there would be a change.

.1725

All too often they were just seen as the people who went out, dropped the lines and picked out the fish. Their input was not valued. As a result, in the fishery we've seen some catastrophic, cataclysmic collapses and the dislocations that have come about because of that.

I agree, and I think you've done a bang-up job in addressing some of those issues we want in the bill.

Ms Baker: We're particularly concerned about the stakeholder issue. Today it seems to be in vogue to have mediations, negotiations and round tables with the stakeholders, but nobody has defined who those stakeholders should be. I hope it is something the standing committee and the department will address with respect to these co-management issues, because things can be held up for years if Joe Blow down the street, who says he really cares about the fish, gets involved at the table. We're very concerned about that.

Mr. Wells: I also want to thank you, Deborah, for the fine presentation. I think you've done an excellent job. I have a couple of questions.

Earlier we heard from the Area 18 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association and the presentation was dissimilar to yours. You seem to have taken a different approach from area 18. I need to get a sense of the difference between the two associations. Why is there such a difference between the Area 18 and Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen's Associations?

Ms Baker: We are geographically located side by side. There's an imaginary line between us. I would say the group I represent has taken a different path with respect to trying to work out resource plans with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans than area 18 has chosen to take. I don't want to elaborate specifically unless you can ask me specific questions. The political stance is the difference in the two areas. But area 18 certainly took a different position with respect to distributing crabs to the unlicensed fishermen this spring than we did.

Mr. Wells: These areas are not in my riding, so I'm not as familiar with the groups, so....

Ms Baker: The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans decided to spread out the crab quota among some unlicensed fishermen who didn't have individual quotas. There was a great kerfuffle about that because fishermen in the area all along the coast, and I suppose the whole Gulf of St. Lawrence, felt the allocation they had was reasonable. There had been poor fishing in the past and they were just making up the profits they hadn't realized in the past. Their costs were rising and the stock was going to decline, so they really didn't want a redistribution of crab at the time.

Our group was shown a proposed pilot project wherein I think 19 new crab licences would be issued in our area. Our group did not particularly like the pilot project, so we came up with our own project and were able to distribute crab licences to 34 fishermen, and we successfully negotiated a couple of other minor things with the department.

We took a different position from those in area 18 on that. I don't think they wanted to give up any crab. We actually voluntarily gave up crab so we could do that. We sat at the table and gave up a part of our quota.

Mr. Wells: Do you both fish the same areas, areas 18 and 19, or are the areas where you fish separated by an imaginary line as well?

Ms Baker: I'm not actually sure. We fish in something called a gully, which is a deep water area off the coast. I'm not sure if that gully runs down through area 18 or not, but I think it's probably part of the same crab stock. I can't give you an expert opinion on that.

Mr. Wells: I think the comments about the confusion at the round table disturb us all. I know people with other motives have been sending out misinformation. I'm just wondering if you have a sense of where the misinformation is coming from, externally. Do you get a sense of that, from your association's point of view, from where you're getting your information?

Ms Baker: The only information we've actually received is from the round table I attended.

Mr. Wells: Did you get a sense of where the round table got its information? Were you able to assess that when you were there?

.1730

Ms Baker: The round table, to clarify for the committee, was set up primarily to go over some provincial dues legislation the round table participants were trying to encourage the provincial government to pass. People belonging to organizations such as ours who were facing co-management strategies with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and having to sign a scientific agreement, for example, would have some way to enforce a fee structure on their membership. Without some kind of legislation and enforcement some people just wouldn't pay their membership dues.

The round table discussions - I only attended two round tables and I think there were four of them - ended up focusing more on the Oceans Act and amendments to the Fisheries Act. Only two people had copies, as far as I know, of the proposed Oceans Act, and there was much discussion about that. Robert Chisholm was the facilitator, although in my opinion - and I do facilitation mediation work - he definitely was not neutral. He was asked about his political position and took his position at the round table. There wasn't a consensus at the round table, for example, on the letter that was sent to the minister and signed by members. That was not a consensus document.

The people at the round table, as far as I know, were representatives of various fishermen's organizations, but less than half of the fishermen's organizations were represented at the table. I'm not sure whether any of the information went back to the organizations for feedback from the membership. I don't like to quote figures here, but probably only 20% or 30% of fishermen in Nova Scotia are organized. So anything that came out of that round table really isn't representative, in my opinion, of the fishermen's opinion of what's going on. As far as I know, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not made a proactive initiative to explain either pieces of legislation to any fishermen's organization.

Mr. Wells: I think those comments are fair and we're glad to hear them. I think we're disturbed by some of the information but it's out there. I'm hearing it and I think we have an obligation to try to get the information out. I appreciate your comments. Again, your presentation was excellent and we thank you for it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Does anyone else have any questions before Ms Baker leaves?

Thank you very much.

The next person on the agenda is Irene Novaczek, fisheries coordinator, who's coming to us on video.

Welcome, Irene. Do you have a presentation to read?

Ms Novaczek: I do.

I want to thank the committee for inviting me to provide my opinion on the Oceans Act. I must say it's very disappointing that you haven't come to the coast to discuss this very important act with a wide range of coastal stakeholders. The cooperation of people living and working in coastal communities will be essential to the future success of this act as a tool to ensure sustainability in the coastal zone.

I spent October 23 in conference with representatives of fishermen's organizations at the round table. The people around the table were distressed by the fact that neither the Department of Fisheries and Oceans nor your committee had attempted to provide them with any information, or an opportunity to provide input into the scope and content of the bill.

I am chair of the oceans caucus, which is a network of some 70 environmental organizations concerned with ocean health and, to a lesser degree, fisheries management questions. Our community members are also dismayed by the fact we were not invited to be involved in developing this bill. From the day the minister tabled his vision document last fall, we have been asking for an opportunity to make some representation as to what this bill should or should not contain. Fishermen feel the same frustration that this is coming at them as a package they are really not familiar with and haven't had any input into.

.1735

It was me who informed the round table of the bill and of this particular consultation and urged fishermen's organizations to get on the list to speak to you. As far as we could tell, Mr. Boudreau and I were the two people around the table who had copies of the Oceans Act and attempted to convey some idea of what was in it. The fact that it was me who brought this information to fishermen's organizations just shows how extremely poor the process has been. It's just this type of thing that ensures the bill will be resisted rather than embraced by fishers and their communities.

There is no doubt Canada needs an effective oceans act to stop the current trend of degradation of our coastal zone piece by piece. Without a framework for integrated management, we lack the means to track, understand and manage our activities and their consequences at an ecosystem level. We also lack understanding of what needs to be protected or repaired to ensure healthy ocean ecosystems that will support wildlife, fisheries and human communities for generations to come.

Part I of the Oceans Act sets the stage for ratification of the Law of the Sea, and this is long overdue. I see no problem with most of this section as written, although in keeping with UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, I would like to see the exclusive economic zone defined as a common heritage of all Canadians, just as the high seas under UNCLOS are considered the common heritage of all mankind.

At the end of part II is a paragraph dealing with amendments to regulations promulgated under the act. Whereas the original regulations will be gazetted to allow a period for public comment, amendments to these regulations will not. Depending on the content of the regulations and the content of any amendments, this lack of public process surrounding such amendments may be a problem.

In my view, it's part II, billed as an enabling framework for integrated management, that requires amendment. This section starts off with the statement that the management strategy doesn't apply to rivers and lakes. I think I understand why that's in there, given the recent moves to harmonization of federal and provincial jurisdictions. A harmonization strategy seeks to shift federal responsibilities over inland fish habitat out of the Department of Fisheries and into the provincial departments and Environment Canada.

However, the Department of Fisheries will always retain the constitutional responsibility over that fish habitat. Further, the input of rivers and the land use practices in watersheds are critical to marine ecosystem health and cannot be divorced from management of the exclusive economic zone.

I would therefore ask the committee to clarify the intentions of the Department of Fisheries in making this statement and to seek some way to ensure artificial boundaries are not set in place in this bill that would lessen the efficacy of the act in coastal resource management.

.1740

In the paragraphs that follow, reference is made to ``a national management strategy'', implying that the government may have in mind a single template to be imposed on all three coasts. This would be a mistake, given the diversity of our coasts and the need for a regionally appropriate approach to management.

I therefore urge you to find language that recognizes this diversity. Whether you simply say ``regionally appropriate management strategies'' that are coordinated at a national level or whatever, it is very important to recognize that one size will not fit all and should not be attempted. That shouldn't be a goal of this bill because that is not progressive.

The next section talks about two so-called fundamental principles for the management strategy. I find these principles to be totally inadequate. For one thing, sustainable development - and that has a lot of different meanings, depending on who you're talking to - is, to my mind, not a principle. It is a goal.

Integrated management is also not so much a principle that is recognized in international law or elsewhere. It could be considered a tool, but it is one that has no standard definition I'm aware of and it doesn't have a history of use in the relevant international agreements Canada has been negotiating in recent years.

I suggest that sustainability is indeed a useful goal for this bill and that you need four fundamental principles to be specifically stated. You could do it in this section. Even better would be to put a purposes clause at the very beginning of the bill to very clearly state the purpose of this bill. That is standard practice, and I'm surprised this bill doesn't have it right up front.

There are fundamental principles you need if you're going to have a goal of sustainability. You need the use of an ecosystem approach. You need the precautionary principle. You need intergenerational equity - and that speaks to sustainability - so that you recognize the rights of future generations as well as the short-term economic goals of present generation. And you need social justice.

It is very clear to me as an environmentalist that we will never have responsible environmental management in the absence of social justice. You have to have them both at the same time or it doesn't work.

A stated commitment to these principles would bring the bill in line with Canada's prior commitments under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the UN Convention on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, which has just been successfully wrapped up, and the UN Biodiversity Convention. All of these three conventions are very important and clearly pertinent to sustainability of our ocean ecosystems.

A specific commitment to give precedence to the needs of coastal communities and fish harvesters having an historical attachment to and dependence on the resource would also be consistent with the UN's FAO code of conduct for responsible fishing. The Canadian government and Canadian non-governmental organizations helped draft this code and we have a moral obligation to abide by it. Part of that code makes very specific reference to the priority of rights of coastal communities and traditional harvesters to those ocean resources adjacent to them and on which they are dependent. If a basic level of security is not provided to coastal communities and small-scale fish harvesters in this act, we lose this valuable opportunity to protect our coastal culture and ensure that coastal people embrace the act and its principles.

.1745

You've heard already today - I was here listening to the previous presentations - how very important it is to put some level of security for fish harvesters and their communities into this act, especially in these days of globalization and privatization. This is a very critical juncture in the history of our coastal areas.

The voluntary cooperation of coastal people is our best hope for protection and rational management of marine resources. I refer the committee to Japan. As distant-water fishers they're not necessarily the best lads, but when it comes to their own coastal people their government has set legal protection in place for coastal people and their communities to ensure that they have access to their local resources in perpetuity. I would say that is long overdue here in Canada.

In general, I'm disturbed by the prevalence of the word ``may'' in parts II and III of the bill. Surely the minister should have a duty, not a discretionary potential, to develop required policies and programs in support of ecosystem-based management. After all, this is, under the Constitution, a federal responsibility.

The clause on terms for establishment of advisory or management bodies is particularly objectionable, both to me as an environmentalist and to every fisherman I have spoken to on this topic.

On one hand, DFO is preparing to implement user-pay for everything: licensing, monitoring, data collection, wharf maintenance, harbour dredging, weather reporting, marine charts, and on and on. Fishermen are being told to accept these burdens at the same time as their quotas and means of support are cut back or even eliminated, cuts that were brought on largely by DFO mismanagement and the abuse of the resource by industrial harvesters employing highly destructive technologies.

At the same time as fishers are being told to take responsibility for management of resources and to pay for it, this act would make it impossible for these same fishermen to elect representatives to management bodies because it specifically says that the minister will - that's one of the few ``shalls'' in it - appoint the members of such management bodies.

I heard it mentioned before that the stakeholder groups will nominate their representatives. If that is to be so, then let it be stated very clearly. If their representatives are nominated by some democratic process from within their interest group or sector, I don't think the minister should have the discretion to say, ``Oh no, I don't like that person, he's got the wrong political stripe on him, so we won't have him, we'll have someone else.''

That would be unfair and undemocratic, and in a federal act I would find it really objectionable. We're either looking for partners here who are true partners and who are treated with respect, or we're not. It must be very clear what the playing field is going to be.

If the government expects to engender trust and cooperation in fishing communities, as is needed, and if there is to be any hope for future sustainability, this approach of top-down appointments and so on is surely the wrong one. If DFO is delegating responsibilities and costs, they must also be prepared to share their power.

The concept of establishing marine environmental quality guidelines, objectives and criteria is a good one. But at this stage in our development, in light of the many problems afflicting all three coasts, this needs to be an obligation and not a discretionary process. I recommend that ``may'' be replaced by ``shall''.

.1750

This paragraph should also identify at least some basic goal in terms of ecosystem health. It should provide a broadly inclusive list of potential interested parties to give coastal communities, fishers and environmentalists some assurance that they will in fact be involved in the process, and that it won't simply be the federal government and large fishing corporations, for example, or industrial players and people with the money to cover the costs that government wants to divest.

I would like to see an explicit obligation for the minister to develop practical frameworks for inclusive, effective, public participation in the definition of guidelines, objectives and criteria. As you can tell, at this point I'm fairly disenchanted with DFO's public process and inaccessibility and I feel the need for quite explicit assurances in this act.

This paragraph is also the place to state that any guidelines should have some tangible result in the form of a stated goal, which would have timelines attached, and some method of auditing progress and reporting this to the public. Otherwise, all this act does is talk.

We need a framework for accountable action. I would recommend that, at the very least, a clause be added to require a five-year review of the act and its progress, as was provided for with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There should also be some specific role for an environmental auditor.

The next portion of part II refers to the minister entering into agreements with any person or body for purposes that are not specified. This was the particular section that certainly caught the attention of inshore fishermen's organizations.

I am aware that proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act would give the minister power to sign contracts for what is essentially the privatization of fisheries management in a piecemeal stock-by-stock, sector-by-sector basis. In light of that, inclusion of this sentence, which on the surface seems innocent enough, requires some scrutiny and analysis.

The piecemeal privatization of resource management to the highest bidder is the opposite of integrated, publicly accountable management. The only consistency is that a single bureaucracy is in charge of the various negotiations. The problem, or one of the problems, is that the actual managers would have no means of coordinating their efforts with one another, nor would they be accountable to the public or to other sectoral interests in the coastal zone. On the contrary, such vested-interest parties typically claim confidentiality over their data for commercial reasons. We have seen this in the international sphere in terms of trying to get countries to divulge fisheries data that is disaggregated. They won't do it. They say, oh no, we can't tell you exactly who is doing what or how much they caught because that would make them less competitive commercially. This makes integrated management very difficult.

If all you know is that x tonnes of tuna were caught but you don't know where or by whom or under what circumstances, with such a migratory species it is very difficult to know what you're dealing with. And we have many migratory groundfish species, for instance, in our waters for which integrated management is an absolute requirement.

Anything in this act that would be open-door - and I'm sure I'll be back talking to you again under the Fisheries Act amendment if you give me leave - or anything that further entrenches the type of system that has gotten us to where we are today.... Please be very careful that this sort of stop-by-stop, sector-by-sector, piecemeal, single-species management approach is not entrenched in this act. And be very clear of what the words in the last paragraph, in particular, really mean. Make it very clear in the act to ensure that people in the coastal zones who are going to be affected by these sorts of management processes in the future understand what this means so that they can make their plans for the future.

.1755

The list of things the minister may do in the following paragraph includes the giving of grants. I would suggest that the types of recipients and the purposes of such grants need to be qualified. Consultation with other parties also needs qualification.

Under what terms will these consultations take place? We are all far too used to consultations that soak up our time and energy and then get shelved, where the participants to consultations see no movement in terms of government policy that would reflect their input, and we're tired of it. Will the consultees have any assurance that their advice is even considered, much less implemented? Or in the event their advice is rejected, will there be any mechanism for demanding an explanation or rationale that would go beyond a simple political explanation?

The provision for marine protected areas is very welcome, but here again the language is discretionary. If the government has any true commitment to sustainability, surely they must set aside some portion of the exclusive economic zone as an insurance policy against our inevitable management mistakes. This might be a good place to set a minimum target in terms of a portion of area to be protected by some defined point in the future; or, because that would involve a lot of work at the coastal community level and involvement with affected people, perhaps it would be enough simply to indicate some process by which that will be undertaken, and to indicate that we have a goal to define such a number by some period of time.

The provision for emergency measures is interesting but it lacks essential parameters, and again its discretionary nature is really not sensible. An emergency requires action. It shouldn't be something you may or may not do.

Another thing I would like specified here is the standard of proof that will be required to indicate that a stock or a habitat is at risk, and who can legitimately blow the whistle. There needs to be some mechanism in place for public interveners to apply for such action; otherwise this is just more wasted paper.

Part III sets up the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as a paramount authority in our marine zone. A single window is desirable in some ways and would hopefully increase accessibility and accountability, but to my mind the DFO bureaucracy has failed to show it has the skills and commitment necessary for this job. I would prefer that Environment Canada retain its place as protector of the environment in marine waters, especially in the areas of ocean dumping and deleterious substances. The integration of efforts by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada is clearly required, and the current rivalry between these departments is both unseemly and counterproductive. It certainly fails to engender any hope for sustainability in my mind.

.1800

Whereas the sections on the coast guard and hydrographic service do seem to belong in part III and are a sensible part of this bill, the section on imposition of fees and charges doesn't belong in the Oceans Act. To my mind, this is clearly part of a Treasury Board deficit reduction agenda. If the primary stated goal of this bill is sustainability, this is not the place for this kind of deficit-cutting agenda.

When the minister issued his A Vision for Ocean Management document last year, he assured us that the Oceans Act would provide a bare skeleton, and that the details would be developed in an implementation strategy in collaboration with affected stakeholders. Yet here we see a specific direction to impose user fees and charges without any prior assessment of the social, economic or environmental impacts, and with no consultation with or agreement by the affected parties. This is unacceptable, and it is also unnecessary considering that proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act will be doing the same thing. To include these items in the Oceans Act, which should be a rallying post for all costal people and something we can embrace, be proud of and proactively cooperate on, is to provoke a backlash from the costal stakeholders whose trust and cooperation is essential to its success.

As for the imposition of fees for regulatory processes and approvals, I would like to see some definition of these. Exactly what types of processes and approvals does the minister have in mind? I'm not necessarily against this type of thing, but I certainly would like to see some clarification given that it is difficult enough for non-governmental organizations to have a voice in anything. If we are among those, the volunteer sector in costal communities is going to have to come up with big bucks in order to participate in regulatory or planning or other processes. This is a clearly a problem because you're closing the door on your most effective and dedicated participants.

This section says that a committee under the Statutory Instruments Act will review and scrutinize any fees. I would like to see here a mechanism for the affected public, whether it is fishermen or whoever, to initiate such a review.

In closing, I would like to say that although I feel that an oceans act is essential and timely, this current draft is not good enough. To have integrated and effective costal resource management we need processes and powers based in costal communities, not in Ottawa offices. These local powers must operate within regional, national, and international frameworks, and under well-defined fundamental principles of ecosystem approach, precaution, social justice, and intergenerational equity.

The act must provide a practical means for Canadians to define their common goals for social justice and ecosystem health, both of which are essential for sustainability. Once goals have been set there must be mechanisms to hold politicians accountable for progress or the lack of it. Without these essentials, the Oceans Act is much less then what Canada's coastal zones and coastal communities urgently need.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Irene. I realize you're not here watching around the room, so just in case you think the chairman was suddenly transposed into a woman, that's not quite the case. I'm the vice-chair of the committee. I have been sitting here for a little while.

The chair is just about to come back now, but I want to just quickly make one comment before he does. It has to do with the priority of coastal communities and your comments along those lines. Being from a small community in Newfoundland, I can certainly relate to your comments there.

.1805

Now I'm quite prepared to give the chair back to the chair and continue.

The Chairman: But you're doing such a good job.

The Vice-Chairman (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Irene, I heard every word. I was sitting at the back having a cup of coffee because you looked so refreshed after you had your cup of coffee down there that I decided to do the same thing.

Before I go to the members of the committee, I have just a couple of comments and perhaps a question. The first thing deals with consultation. Consultation is a word that you can wrap yourself in and it doesn't mean anything unless it's meant to be a meaningful process.

Just so you're aware, there was no attempt by this committee to keep people uninformed about the Oceans Act. We only got the bill a couple of weeks ago. We got the bill and it was introduced in the House at the end of the session. It was only about two and a half weeks ago that it went for second reading; I think it was September 25 or 26. As I think I told you a while back - it might have been a year ago, when I saw you in New York - we had hoped that we would get the bill for a pre-study, but that wasn't the case.

What the committee is trying to do here is to ensure through this type of a teleconference that we hear from as many witnesses as possible. You raised some interesting points vis-à-vis the intent of the bill when you talked about a purposes clause. CARC was here last week, and they raised that and actually made some very specific proposals about what should be included in that.

With respect to other comments on access fees, that's an issue we are going to be seized with as soon as that bill comes before the House. None of us have been briefed, but there have been consultations on that in the field, and I would expect we're going to hear from you and many others when that bill comes forward. That's probably going to be a very contentious piece of legislation.

Ms Novaczek: It will, but you're doing that with the Fisheries Act amendment. There's no need to have it in the Oceans Act as well. Let's be very clear about the purposes of this bill and what it needs to be.

The Chairman: Sure, but let's be very clear, because there's a lack of clarity at the other end with some of the other witnesses. Perhaps the round table misread the intention of the bill. We're going to get some of this stuff clarified because there are issues raised here today that we certainly want to have clarified.

My understanding from the department is that the fees for service that are talked about are basically over in the transport sector. They are being consolidated into this bill from some of the departmental consolidation dealing with the fisheries.

I read the article in The Cape Breton Post. My mom sends it up to me; she still reads it down there. I was astounded that the press release out of that round table focused on those issues. I took it up with me and I said that this was new to me. Most of the issues we're dealing with in this bill are very positive and deal with finally a sharp focus on things such as ocean management and looking at ecosystems instead of having seven or eight different departments each picking away a little bit.

I want to ask you a question, now that I have said all that. Are you supportive of this bill or do you think the bill should stop right now? Are you not supportive of the consolidation? Are you supportive of the sections dealing with marine protected areas? We don't have legislation for that currently. Are you supportive of the general concept of integrated management plans? Once you answer that, then I can ask you questions about the specifics.

Ms Novaczek: As I said, yes, of course I am. I would very much like to be able to take this bill and promote it to my colleagues in the fishing industry and in other sectors in the coastal zone, but it's burdened with all this Treasury Board stuff.

The Chairman: No, it's not. That's not fair, Irene.

Ms Novaczek: Well, just read -

The Chairman: The back end of it deals very specifically with one or two areas. The bill is not a joke.

Ms Novaczek: It doesn't need to be in there. In light of what is happening with the amendments to the Fisheries Act, which are going to be very contentious, there is language in here that doesn't need to be in this bill. Primarily this bill should set the framework for ratifying the Law of the Sea, setting in place some fundamental principles, and setting a framework under which provincial and federal governments, non-governmental parties, and various industries operating in the coastal zone can collaborate and proactively plan under those principles. Let's just keep it at that.

.1810

Let's define the goals up front very clearly and then ensure that everything else is consistent with those goals, and not let stuff that's going to be in the Fisheries Act anyway interfere with the progress of this bill. That is what I would like see. I would like to clean this up and then I can in good conscience....

I want to see some protection in here for fish harvesters in coastal communities. I want to see a proactive commitment on the part of the federal government that our worst fears are not going to be realized, that we're not going to wake up in five or ten years down the road and have a couple of big corporations with contractual management agreements dominating the coastal zones and coastal communities emptied out and gone to Toronto or Vancouver.

There is a high degree of distrust and disenchantment. People down are are feeling very beat up, which I'm sure you know. Therefore, when we see little sections in here that may look innocuous, we read them and we say, this is part of that Treasury Board agenda, this is part of that privatization stuff that's going into the Fisheries Act.

Maybe the minister thinks he can't get his Fisheries Act amendments through quick enough to actually get his user fees in place by January 1 so he's going to try to slip it into this bill and get it swept through Parliament very quickly because everybody wants to ratify the Law of the Sea and they think ocean management is a wonderful thing and they'll just ignore all these other little clauses in here. That may or may not be what is happening, but you can't blame us for wondering.

The Chairman: You know this legislation as well as most people on this committee, because as a representative of an NGO you deal not just with local or national scene but the international one as well.

The fees that are talked about in here - you got a little bit in my craw on this because I don't like fees either - are not in any way, shape or form an attempt to impose fees that would otherwise come under the Fisheries Act. I think that's clear. It's clear to me.

What this deals with is marine services, which do not come under the Fisheries Act. They are two separate things.

Ms Novaczek: Then make that very clear.

The Chairman: I take your comments. Perhaps you could help us at the other end, because you're one of the individuals who is looked to in the maritimes and Atlantic Canada to help promote or to promote points of view on legislation. This does not affect the fees under the Fisheries Act. Those things are going to be up and it will be one heck of a battle, I'm sure, on that, but by and large -

Ms Novaczek: But, still, whether it's coast guard fees or -

The Chairman: You're opposed to the fees generally.

Ms Novaczek: - or licensing, hydrographic services, meteorological services, whatever....

The Chairman: Are you opposed to fees for charts?

Ms Novaczek: What I want to see is the deficit reduction agenda taken out of this bill so that it's cleaned up. I want to see a conscious attempt by the Department of Fisheries and other federal departments not to just jump to the tune of Treasury Board but to take the time to assess what the long-term ramifications of all of these different fees hitting our coastal communities at the same time are. What are the long-term medical costs, psychiatric costs, environmental costs, and small business costs?

The Chairman: I hear you.

Ms Novaczek: There are tremendous ramifications.

The Chairman: If you're generally opposed to fees, then that's on the record and your comments will taken in that context. I want to try to divorce the fee - you made a very strong and clear case on that - but in terms of the rest of the bill, if those two relevant clauses were gone, would you be sitting here today saying that you generally support the goals of the bill with the caveats and the suggestions you've made today?

Ms Novaczek: We could support it if there was a purposes clause that spoke to social justice - which would bring it in line with our international commitments - as well as environmental responsibility and the precautionary approach, and as long as some of those ``mays'' were replaced by ``shalls''in order to make it a really strong bill - because at the moment it's just a bunch of paper. It's too discretionary. You could take it or leave it. It doesn't provide any actual protection to anything.

.1815

The Chairman: But could you add the third thing you have to do?

Ms Novaczek: So with those improvements, I would say fabulous, we need this bill; we need it yesterday.

The Chairman: And also some assurance that when we talk about stakeholders in some other parts of the bill, that it be specific, that the fishermen, that the local...would also be included as part of that, right? You want it to be specific.

Ms Novaczek: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. That's the three.

Ms Novaczek: Was it just three? Anyway, you have my text in your hands. I faxed it up to you the other day.

The Chairman: Yes, we got it.

I didn't want your presentation to end with you saying you don't want the bill, because I know that you've worked very hard on some of the things that are in the bill.

Ms Novaczek: Some of the parts of this bill are essential, and as I say, we need them yesterday, absolutely. However, it's burdened with some things that are not pertinent to what should be the primary goal, the objective up front.

The Chairman: Your points are very well put, as always.

Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells: In going through your brief and trying to relate it to the specific questions in the bill, I'm having difficulty, because you keep referring to this paragraph and that paragraph, without numbering the paragraph you're referring to.

Ms Novaczek: Yes. I'm sorry.

Mr. Wells: Is it possible you could go through, not necessarily now...? But, for example, you say ``this act would make it impossible for these same fishermen to elect representatives to management bodies.'' Which clause are you referring to?

Ms Novaczek: Yes. That's where it says that ``the minister may''.... It's right after the one to develop policies and programs, and two, work with other departments and governments on implementation, in part II, and then he may ``establish advisory or management bodies and appoint or designate the members''.

Mr. Wells: Part II of what, though? Is there a particular clause number?

Ms Novaczek: Yes, I'm sorry. No, I didn't write them by number, and I don't have the bill with me here.

Mr. Wells: Okay, not now, but to make it easier.... To go to the next paragraph, you say you recommend that -

Ms Novaczek: It's all in the right order.

Mr. Wells: But you haven't recognized that when we're going back over this and you refer to this paragraph and this paragraph, without using a number, it's very difficult to relate what you're saying to the act.

Ms Novaczek: Right. I'm sorry. I'd be happy to refax this with the paragraphs indicated.

Mr. Wells: If you did, it would be much easier to use when we're doing clause-by-clause.

Ms Novaczek: I'd be happy to do that for you.

Mr. Wells: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): I want to thank you for presenting this proposal to us.

In your third page, you talk about an ecosystem approach. In this bill there is a strategy to manage in a comprehensive and holistic way. One of the main purposes of this bill is that it is an ecosystem approach, not a single-species approach.

Ms Novaczek: Yes, it should be.

Mr. Dhaliwal: So do you not agree that this bill's basic fundamental principle is the ecosystem approach?

Ms Novaczek: No, because what this bill says is that integrated management...all that could mean is that you have a single bureaucracy handling all the strings. It doesn't mean they're going to deal with parts of the coastal zone on an ecosystem basis.

We need some more specific language in here that establishes what the fundamentals are, and that it is actually going to be ecosystem-based management. We're sitting here and DFO is proposing amendments to the Fisheries Act, which would privatize management on a species-by-species, sector-by-sector basis; and that doesn't jive necessarily with an ecosystem approach.

So what I want to do is ensure that this Oceans Act, which I hope will be the overriding act, is very clear, that it establishes an ecosystem approach as a fundamental, and integrated management is not necessarily the same thing, you see.

An ecosystem approach is language that is used internationally now, was used in the Convention on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and I think we need to have it in here, quite specifically, because it's been hashed around and there have been definitions put on it and people have some understanding now of what that means. It's not simply a single bureaucracy management; it's focused not on who's doing it, but on where they're doing it. That's different.

.1820

Mr. Dhaliwal: I don't think you got my question. I'm saying that when we're changing the fundamental concept of managing our oceans as opposed to managing simply for a fishing basis, isn't that a larger ecosystem approach? That's what my question was to you.

Ms Novaczek: Yes. That is what an ecosystem approach should be. It deals with oil and gas development, seabed mining, marine installations, the whole ball of wax. Absolutely.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Okay, thank you.

The other point you've made is on intergenerational equity. As I understand it, when you talk about sustainability, when you talk about making sure that we don't take away from a future generation and that we act in a sustainable fashion, you are in fact talking about intergenerational equity.

Ms Novaczek: That's right.

Mr. Dhaliwal: To me, the term ``sustainability'' means that we do not have a higher standard of living for ourselves that we take away from someone else. So when we talk about sustainability, we're also talking about intergenerational equity, but you seem to be concerned that we're not including those terms in the bill.

Ms Novaczek: Well, I would say that's a fundamental principle. What the bill talks about is not sustainability, which is a term I'm very comfortable with; it talks about sustainable development.

Now, let's go back to the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology's Committee on Oceans and Coasts. They kicked this ball off with the tabling of their report, which exhorted the minister to go ahead and get on with developing an Oceans Act. If you look at their tone and focus, it's very much on the development, not on the sustainability.

There are lots of people who put that emphasis on it; it's sustainable development, but it's development. It's not necessarily sustainable, because that's a bit of an oxymoron. You can't really have your cake and eat it too, and have it still there for the next person.

So I would like to see this. You can call it sustainability or you can call it intergenerational equity, but it has a different nuance, certainly a different meaning. For me, it puts a different tone to the act than sustainable development, which is a term that has been very much misused.

I have sort of a jaundiced view on this, because I have just spent the last three years in consultations with the mining industry. They talk about sustainable mining, which is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. They call it sustainable development in mining, where you're taking a non-renewable resource and extracting it from the ground. It's just not sustainable development; it's nonsense to even think about that, and yet those people use this term all the time. It's a bit of a green wash.

Your goal may be sustainable development. I'm not against all forms of development, but your fundamental principle should be intergenerational equity or sustainability per se, without necessarily the development. We need fundamental principles; you have to sustain your ecosystems in order to have any development. So sustainability comes first and development comes second.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Well, I don't agree with that. If I were to follow your logic, that would mean we should have no development, because no development is sustainable.

Ms Novaczek: No.

Mr. Dhaliwal: When you say sustainable development, it means development in a sustainable fashion. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any development whatsoever.

Ms Novaczek: As I say, it is an oxymoron. It's probably not a term that should be entrenched into federal law.

Clearly, we're into development. That's what humans do, and it's not going to stop. What we have to do is lessen our impacts but recognize that there always will be impacts and not put blinders over our eyes and say we can do this forever and suffer no consequences. Clearly that won't be. What we have to do is recognize the consequences and deal with them and seek to minimize them.

Mr. Dhaliwal: You have to recognize it as development, but you have to do it in a sustainable fashion.

Ms Novaczek: Well, as sustainable as we can manage.

.1825

Mr. Dhaliwal: We could probably go on for a long time and I know there are -

Ms Novaczek: Yes, this is a philosophical discussion. I think we'd better -

Mr. Dhaliwal: - a number of your concepts, but let me just focus on one where I think we can make some headway.

You say we should allocate a certain amount, either area or a percentage, for coastal protection areas. Is there something you had in mind in terms of what percentage you would envision for marine protected areas? You said we should have set aside a certain portion. Are there any percentages you were thinking of or any area, or is it that just generally there should be goals set up as a percentage of the oceans? Is that what you were thinking of?

Ms Novaczek: We need to have a stated goal that we set something aside. Whether we have the knowledge at this moment to specify a proportion....

For land, we've agreed to a goal of 12%. We're nowhere close to it, but we're working towards that in terms of national parks and small protected areas. We have no idea, even on land, whether that is enough to maintain our biodiversity and maintain the functioning of those ecosystems in such a way that they maintain us, human communities. We've sort of said it seems like something that's doable, we can do without that 12%. We should be able to accomplish that.

Perhaps we need to set some goal in that ballpark for the oceans as well while clearly recognizing that we really don't have the science on which to base it. It's something to work towards for the time being and it may or may not be enough.

Of course, when you talk about marine protected areas, you have to talk to these gentlemen around here, the fishermen and other affected parties and communities. Because unless they believe in their hearts, unless they know -

I think they do. Many fishermen that I talk about do know. They would say, well, why would anybody fish that spawning ground? If you leave it alone....

We have lots of evidence from all around the world. I had the pleasure of living in New Zealand when they put in their first marine park. It was a no-take zone. The local fishermen were up in arms. They were ready to burn down the adjacent local university marine station, but now they are the greatest supporters of that protected area because they've got their fishing boats and lobster pots all around that area. It is a breeding and nursery area of great value, and their fish catches - although they don't have access to that little pocket of ocean - all around it have gone way up.

We need to get the story about those successes out into coastal communities and we need to allow people to mull it over and to decide for themselves. Nobody knows better than fishers what areas should be protected. If they thought there was some way of actually doing it so that not just the fishers but everybody would be excluded from it and that everybody would have the benefits from it as well, outside the boundary.... That's very important.

Mr. Dhaliwal: I understand all of that. I think my question was if there was a percentage you had in mind. You don't?

Ms Novaczek: I think somewhere in the ballpark of 12%, just because it has some precedent on land. It might be reasonable. It's very important to engage people in coastal communities in that debate. It's not my place to really pick the number out of the air. People might say 20% or 30% in this particular area and maybe none over there. It'll be very variable, depending on the richness and the sensitivity of the local coastal area.

The Chairman: Irene, I'm going to call it a day at this point. If you have other information you want to send in to us, we'd really appreciate it.

I also underline that when CARC was here, they gave us some pretty specific examples of where they thought the language could be strengthened. We've got our research staff and others looking at that for possible amendments, so you might want to keep in touch with us as this process gets under way.

Ms Novaczek: Right. One thing that disturbs me is that you say you only just got the bill in your hands. What is the...? We've waited for decades for this bill. Environmentalists have been asking for this for a long time. The Law of the Sea has been under negotiation since the early 1970s.

.1830

What is the ungodly rush now? You have the bill in your hand one week and you're doing your consultations with coastal people within a couple of weeks when DFO hasn't even reached them to attempt to explain what's in this bill. They haven't even had a chance. How can you expect us to provide you with competent input when the time lines are so rushed? That's a problem.

The Chairman: We're sort of between a rock and a hard place. We've had environmental groups write to us and tell us to get this passed quickly before this parliamentary session finishes because they don't want to wait another seven to ten years for it.

This has been alluded to a number of times today. People have said that there's been no consultation. Irene, I will get you a list of the individuals who were consulted. I'll give you the CARC list, which is one of the lead environmental agencies. That list must have had.... They've done round tables on it, thirty or fifty. They've been here. I don't know if you -

Ms Novaczek: Yes, and I participated in those. But we didn't see any draft of the bill at that time. We provided that input. We volunteered our time and did that with the best of intentions. It went off. I got my copy of their document maybe a month ago. It's a very good document with lots of great stuff in it. I have no way of knowing whether anybody in DFO ever read it. I don't see a lot of it reflected in the oceans act.

The Chairman: Yes, well, Irene, that's why I alluded earlier to this whole bugaboo of consultation. I want to make sure everybody understands that the role of parliamentarians is to try to undertake that consultation.

There's the list of workshop participants, two full pages by CARC. We're using them. We have to use some lead groups and agencies. We've done that. I suspect that through this process there have probably been well over a hundred groups consulted. We'll get the list for you, but there's no unholy haste to get this done. This is consultative.

Rather than sit here and say that we'll see three people, we're probably going to see forty or fifty. The clerk has contacted an extensive list of individuals who we believed would be interested, who had written to the minister and to members of Parliament. And we are going to hear anybody who has requested to be heard.

That's the level of consultation. It's not a matter of sitting back and telling people to wait six months for it. Then I'd be criticized as chair of the committee for not proceeding with the bill. Anybody you know who wishes to be heard should write to us. We take this very seriously.

Ms Novaczek: That's what I'm busy telling them.

The Chairman: It's a groundbreaking piece of legislation.

Irene, I have also made arrangements since there seems to be some misinformation in the field, back in Nova Scotia and in P.E.I., about what this bill does, which concerns me greatly.

I've asked the officials down at the back of the room here to arrange for senior officials of DFO who are versed in this bill to contact individuals who are representative of groups in the fisheries in the Atlantic early tomorrow morning and to arrange tout de suite as quickly as possible for a briefing as to what is in this bill and, more importantly, what is not in this piece of legislation.

Ms Novaczek: That would be very welcome.

The Chairman: And once that's done, if there's further.... I think I'm going to get back to some of the groups that were here today, and ask them after the briefing if they have some other things they want to give us. We're going to try our best to make sure that it's broad-based.

Ms Novaczek: Yes. That's good.

The Chairman: But you represent groups as well and you know that consultation is always difficult.

Ms Novaczek: Yes. I have very limited information from DFO about this bill and it took me a long time to even get a copy of the bill. I called up everybody I knew and I was told that there was very limited printing or that maybe as a very special favour I could have a copy. It was very difficult to get access.

The Chairman: Okay. Well, you've done a very good job for somebody who claims to have it for -

Ms Novaczek: Well, I put my time into it, but.... We asked DFO for a very small budget to assist us in getting the word out. We could have done it, got the word out to many more people - but no, no way.

The Chairman: If you're here from DFO and if you've heard from Irene, mark it down.

Thanks a million for your presentation.

The next one we have is an individual presentation, if he's still here. Is Stuart Beaton there?

.1835

Mr. Stuart Beaton (Individual Presentation): Yes, sir, present and accounted for.

Just by way of introduction, I suppose, so that you don't feel I just dropped in off the bus, I'm a commercial fisherman with 25 years worth of experience in numerous mixed fisheries. I'm also a member of the Area 19 Snow Crab Fishermen's Association, which made a presentation earlier. I don't have a lot to say about that other than that I concur with Deborah Baker.

What I have to say will be along the lines of a side bar, I suppose, to the discussion on the bill per se. It deals with the Oceans Act insofar as that I would broadly support acts enabling a rationalization of the fishery along the lines of alternative management measures, specifically property rights. I would be in favour of that. I understand the necessity, perhaps, for those portions of the act coming into place because there are currently a number of co-management regimes, specifically for halibut and various other things, that really don't have probably as sound a legislative backdrop as they might have.

I guess I'm speaking for myself, as well as a number of my colleagues - Hasse Lindblad and others - and we kind of consider ourselves to be a sort of amateur think-tank. We are fishermen involved in the fishery, and we are involved in real-time management decisions of our own at the micro- and personal level.

I would suggest that we have been guided essentially by four principles in everything we've done. The first one is that the viability of the survival of coastal communities is best served by the creation of viable units.

The second item is that in fishing, as in any other business, security of tenure is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition to achieve viability.

Our third principle is that we consider ourselves to be proactive. We're not afraid to look at alternatives, and we spent quite a bit of time in the U.S. with the Maine Lobster Institute. We met with people such as Dr. Jim Penn, who is the director of fishery science for west Australia lobster; Daryl Sykes, from New Zealand, who is coordinator of the New Zealand lobster fishery; and so on.

We also like to challenge the conventional wisdom as often as we can without running afoul of St. Thomas Aquinas' maxim that some truths are self-evident while other truths are self-evident only to the wise.

As a quick example of conventional wisdom, fishermen will tell you the enterprise allocation system destroyed the groundfish. That is utter hogwash. When the EAs came in, there were 180-odd trawlers over 100 feet operating under the Canadian flag. At the end of the fishery, there were probably about 40 or 50, and I suppose that number had been rationalized down over time and necessity. But I don't suppose for one moment that the collapse would not have occurred if there were still 180-odd boats in a competitive fishery. We might look at the technology that's involved, or we might look at the science and quotas, but I don't think we need to cast aspersions on the management regime.

Anyway, I have a prepared text that I'll run through. By way of an aside, I think the impetus is that change is absolutely necessary and that a role of DFO should be, I believe - and this is not pertinent to the Oceans Act per se - the creation of a climate of discussion.

A major change is upon the fishery. The long-ignored cost-income dynamic of the industry, overcapacity in both participation and technology, inept and detached bureaucratic management regimes, and political manipulation have at last brought us to the point where the need for genuine remedy is irresistible. The catalysts of change have been a calamity - the decimation of several fish stocks - and economic and fiscal necessity. The government can no longer solve fisheries problems with cash infusions.

As a prelude to our presentation, we would like to outline two specific instances that are symptomatic of the difficulties of the fishery. These are things that probably normally wouldn't spring to people's minds, but they demonstrate to us examples of how fisheries management has been sorely out of touch with reality.

The first concerns the inability of fisheries managers to come to grips with expansion of effective effort over the years. Some effort increases have been obvious: increased participation, larger boats and such. These order of magnitude increases have either been ignored out of political expediency or for some other reason, or futile attempts have been made through the creation of a labyrinth of input controls on the fisheries, such as seasonal closures, discard prohibitions, and observer programs, to name a few.

.1840

However, as soon as a regulation was either circumvented or found to be ineffective, another layer of prohibition was laid on the regulatory web, with three results: increased enforcement costs and problems, increased compliance difficulties and increased operating cost to the fishermen, and further stock depletion. All of these have led to rent dissipation, waste, closures, and increased demand on the public treasury to succour the industry through bailouts, subsidies, and social programs.

Other increase efforts have been more subtle. Conventional wisdom holds that the lobster fishery is successful because it has less government intervention and is effort-controlled. A finite number of lobstermen use a finite number of traps for a finite number of days. The conventional wisdom here is wrong. The lobster fishery has been subject to major effort increase over time, yet there's been no apparent recognition of this by DFO or by fishermen in many instances. Larger boats, larger and better traps, better bait, better sounders, LORAN, GPS, and Sunday fishing have all increased the number of trap hauls per season and the effective fishing power of an individual trap.

West Australia has calculated the effectiveness of a trap over the last 12 years. They have 136%, according to Bowen, Fisheries Department, west Australia, October 1994.

As an indication of to what extent this sort of thing can go, there are currently about 18 boats using underwater submersible cameras, which take all the guesswork out of catching lobster. So you can suggest that it will have a huge impact on the power of this.

The DFO has failed to see this. Even widely supported conservation measures, such as a carapace size increase for the southern gulf lobsters, cannot overcome the inertia of effort-control management. This lack of ability to either recognize or control effort increases is symptomatic of a fundamental malaise in fisheries management.

The second example we will touch on deals with the economics of the small-boat fishery. Prior to the introduction of limited entry as the cornerstone of fisheries management in the late 1960s, access to the fishery was largely controlled on a community basis. Histories and customs were enforced by tradition, often at the point of a knife in the worst case or by the moral suasion of clergy or community elders in the best applications.

The capital cost of entering the fishery was in any event the cost of boat and gear. Once licences became limited, with all the positive things that entails, they acquired a value they did not previously have. This is scarcity economics. The capital cost of entering the fisheries since limited entry includes the cost of the boat and the gear, but also the cost of a licence, which is in many instances more than half the entry cost. This change didn't affect people at the time too much, but it certainly affected the new entrants.

There's been a whole new level of capital dynamic laid on top of the fishery, yet fishery management hasn't reflected this in any way. Licensing rules are pretty much the same in 1995 as they were in 1968. The DFO continues to maintain a charade that a lobster licence, for example, is worth $30, when transfers occur routinely at prices from $50,000 to $150,000.

These two examples - the lack of ability to either recognize or control effort shifts and the failure to make management reflect economic conditions - are pointed out to show that Canadian fisheries management is badly out of step with the reality of people who are trying to make a living.

The current situation of small-boat fishermen, as you said earlier in a different context, is that we're between a rock and a hard place. Recent initiatives from the government on cost recovery follow logically from the current or impending debt situation the nation is in. It is as useless as it is easy to cast blame for our current fiscal and fisheries plight. An ancient proverb states that even the gods cannot change the past. Our view is that we ought to be looking at the present and the future in a more proactive fashion.

.1845

Operating costs for small-boat fishermen will increase dramatically over the next few years. This increase will not just be the normal inflationary spiralled cost, but will include, but not be limited to, user-pay science, user-pay berthage and facilities, user-pay catch monitoring, increased access and licensing fees, management and co-management partnership costs, mandatory professionalization and organizational dues, and in some cases a contribution to enforcement costs. Some of these things are already on the roll and some are in consultation at the moment.

Fishermen and their organizations have mounted some protests against proposed increases of the costs of doing business. These protests will fail on two counts. First, the national debt situation is a reality and is not a smokescreen for some sort of vendetta against fishermen. Second, there is and will be very little public sympathy for the position that maintains that fishermen ought not to pay an appropriate level of fees for the privileged access to a so-called public resource. Other resource industries such as mining, shipping and forestry have always paid for access or service through royalties, stumpage or other fees.

Consultation may be effective in determining the appropriate levels of payment, but fishermen will be paying more than they did in the past. We don't want to try to quantify this, but I'd say we're looking at something between $2,000 and $5,000 a head. We're not against this ourselves.

The second problem facing fishermen in the immediate future is the extreme likelihood that repeat seasonal users of UIC either will be less and less eligible to claim benefits or will be eligible to claim fewer and fewer benefits. It's uncertain whether these reductions will be effected through means testing or other ways, but the net effect will be downward on incomes. The reality is that costs will increase and net revenue will decrease.

There's lots of rhetoric in the DFO about promoting a viable and sustainable fishery. I've yet to be able to get anyone to tell me what the viability number is. We've been at numerous meetings with DFO. How much are we allowed to make?

In the face of increased costs and decreasing revenue to the net, there are only three possible ways of increasing viability: increase landed volume, increase landed value, or reduce the costs of operation, either net or per unit of production. We submit that the current management regime and licensing regime cannot do any of the above.

On the first, increasing volume, you have fisheries closed or depleted now. You can't increase the volume out of a closed fishery. You shouldn't increase the volume out of a fishery that's on the margins anyway, or that is theoretically sustainable. You can increase the volume per operator by reducing the number of operators. The current management system is a zero sum gain - one in, one out - and this is just serving to enshrine the marginality of small operators.

Second, you can increase the landed value, the dollar value. There may be some room to do this on things like lobster by changing harvesting practices and then markets, but within the traditional marketplace, we cannot compel the consumer or the Red Lobster chain to pay higher prices. Fisheries management, furthermore, has no defined role or specific mandate in the marketplace.

The third way around it is to decrease costs. Most costs are free market costs or market force costs. We can't do much about the price of fuel or these sorts of things. Other input costs, such as access fees, are going to go up, and I'm not so sure that they shouldn't go up. However, if you can reduce the number of operators in the fishery, the resulting increase in production per producer will not result in a parallel increase in cost per unit of production, because as just about everyone who's looked at the fishery will tell you, there is surplus capacity and surplus capital. Fisheries management, as noted above, also has no current mechanism to reduce participation.

It seems there's no easy way out under the current regulatory system. We would hope that the proposed Oceans Act, by providing for some abilities of privatizing, will help that along. If viability is the goal of future fisheries management and the fishery is to stand on its own two feet - that is, if reliance on income support is to be decreased or eliminated and an appropriate portion of the costs of management is to be borne by user groups - then fishermen have to have an opportunity and ability to improve their net returns.

.1850

This can be achieved in one of two ways. The first is to allow fishermen to work and, conversely, to allow workers to fish - that is to say, to deprofessionalize the fishery and declare the fishery to be a supplemental activity. This would require that regulations prohibiting fishermen from having other employment and policies stipulating who may or may not hold licences must be revoked. This is not, to me or to anybody, I think, a preferred option.

The second option I would suggest is to allow fishermen to fish or to truly professionalize the fishery and put in a system that will allow fishermen to increase the scale of their operations out of existing resources by means of transferable property rights of access or production. This will lead to the creation of a smaller number of viable units.

It's worth noting that conventional wisdom causes fishermen to resist changes on a historical basis and on the assumption that fishing is a highly seasonal occupation and therefore requires income support. Surely fishermen knew this when they got in the game. They've been spoon-fed for such a long time that it now becomes very difficult to look at change.

The fishery is no more seasonal than blueberry growing. It's no more seasonal than Christmas-tree growing. It's no more seasonal than tourism. For that matter, it's no more seasonal than a lawyer having a practice in property; it's a seasonal thing. The way other people deal with this is to have operations that can be built to a viable scale.

I believe it's possible to structure a fisherman-generated program of fleet reduction that would prevent both the monopolization of the fishery by individuals by establishing a cap level, and the monopolization of the fishery by corporate interests by both strengthening owner-operator provisions and mandating fleet separation policies.

There are lots and lots of examples, even in Canadian law, of effective caps. The milk marketing board in Nova Scotia has a cap. The egg marketing board in Nova Scotia has a cap. Mrs. Dockendorff, who was married to one of the Irving children, found out they had a cap on land ownership in P.E.I. It can be done.

To this end I think it would be extremely useful to examine in detail some of the property-based systems in small-boat fisheries in places such as west Australia and New Zealand.

I'll make one quick allusion. I attended a conference last year at which Trevor Burkhart, a fisherman from the Kaikoura coast who fishes a 23-foot boat - he's hardly a corporate magnate - and Daryl Sykes, executive director of the lobsterman association in New Zealand, were at a Boston conference at which I presented a paper.

A report was written for the New Zealand fisheries' professional magazine following the conference. In it, Mr. Sykes says:

If you pick up the Sou'Wester, you get people who really ought to know better - Father McGrath and Alan Muise - saying they're ``for fishermen'' in New Zealand. I mean, this is madness. It closes everyone's minds.

A role for DFO, I believe, would be an educational one to establish a forum whereby people can look at alternative management arrangements that will promote and lead to viability.

I think I'll just cut it off there with one.... Do fishermen so covet the ridicule of the public of Canada that their reaction to any type of change is always retrenchment and naysaying? I certainly hope not.

The Chairman: Stuart, I want to say I hope there are more out there like you, because far too often.... I live down there too. I have relatives who fish, as do most people on the committee. I think it's really easy to be held captive by a few people who deny that there's no fish and deny that the problem hasn't been created by a whole number of things, not just bureaucrats in Ottawa but also perhaps people who fish the resource.

.1855

There are some people in Upper Canada, as you said, who believe that no fishermen in that industry down there think there's a different way to manage that's more productive, who aren't afraid of change, who want to lead some change, who want to see co-management and those types of things that work.

I'm very pleased you found the time to come today to give us this information. This whole thing on the Oceans Act we're dealing with, which was somewhat peripheral to some of your comments, talks about that very thing. It's a different way to look at the resource and it's a different way to manage the resource. It affixes responsibilities as well as rights and privileges. I think most of what you've talked about today is exactly in that direction.

Some of us can sometimes take a lot of ridicule because we do go down to wharves and find there are a lot of people who understand the complexities of the fishery. Nobody is happy with the state of affairs when they get bad. There are a lot of good people out there who have better ideas on how to do this, and I think you put it pretty forcefully and cogently on paper. I want to personally thank you for the presentation today.

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): I thought his presentation was an excellent one. I'm very glad to hear some of the comments he made.

The ones you've just mentioned are very pertinent. They seem to reflect some of the comments I've been hearing for the last number of years from many fishermen in my riding.

Mr. Beaton: I believe there's a tremendous educational role to be played. I don't know to what degree there's a planning division in DFO or a sort of extension thing involved in it, but it's just another example of the kind of misinformation that gets around.

Once again, on Bowen's report on Australia, everyone says under a property-based management system all the little boats go when the companies buy all the fleet. That's clearly not what has happened there. On page 7 it says that processing company ownership of vessels was tried in the 1960s and 1970s but was not very successful commercially. That's not surprising to me. If I'm running someone's boat, and on Friday or Saturday night on my way to town I decide to see how the boat is doing and it's on the bottom, I just get on the phone.

The fishery will be no different from other resource production industries. The herd average of corporately owned dairy farms in the United States is about 30% less than the herd average of privately owned dairy farms. People will have a vested interest. I think identifying and consolidating the interest and providing some sort of security of tenure for fishermen is the only way you're going to empower them on the one hand and make them viable on the other.

Mrs. Payne: Make them responsible.

The Chairman: Stuart, before we finish with you, can you tell us again the name of the report you're quoting from that deals with New Zealand and where you got it? How can we get a copy?

Mr. Beaton: You can't get it; you have to have a fax. There are two reports specifically concerning Australia. This is actually a five- or six-page report entitled Fisheries Management Report. It's in four volumes, called Long Term Management Strategies for Western Rock Lobster Fishery. Volume 1, for example, is Evaluation of Management Options, Bernard K. Bowen, Rock Lobster Advisory Committee, and it's fisheries management paper number 67. So the numbers would be 67, 68, 69, and 70. That's from the fisheries department of Western Australia, publication date October 1994.

Similar information is out there everywhere. I can get the same thing for New Zealand.

The Chairman: I want to thank you for your efforts in putting this together. Your comments have been well received and they're very positive. I think they give us reason to note that the process is a good one, because we get people like you and others who have been here today to take the time to share their opinions.

Mr. Beaton: I understand it's a bit of a sidecar to these discussions per se, but the Oceans Act or some act has to empower fisheries management, DFO, with some ability to make substantive changes.

The Chairman: Okay. Your points are well made.

.1900

The next two individuals are from the Nova Scotia Oceans Initiative. We have Hugh Macpherson and Fred Guptill from the advisory council.

Who is starting?

Mr. Hugh A. Macpherson (Member, Advisory Council, Nova Scotia Oceans Initiative): I'll start. I'll make the presentation and Fred will take responsibility for all the things you don't like.

First of all, we'd like to thank the members of the committee for giving us this opportunity to comment on Bill C-98. I'd like to start off from the very beginning by saying we are very much in favour of the bill. We support it and our comments are going to be along the lines of a few details we could suggest in some of the clauses and an expression of some interest in what happens after the bill is passed.

I'd like to start by telling you just what the Nova Scotia Oceans Initiative is. It's an industry-led group consisting of the private sector, federal and provincial laboratories and research institutions, and universities. The only criterion for membership in the NSOI is a common interest in sustainable wealth generation from the oceans.

The goal of NSOI is to join together the talents of industry, government, and universities to produce a more powerful cluster of ocean science and engineering capability for the purpose of gaining new markets for Nova Scotia expertise, both at home and abroad.

The NSOI began with a report that was prepared by the Nova Scotia Council of Applied Science and Technology, known as CAST. It noted that revenues of Nova Scotia companies engaged in ocean activities compared very poorly with the numbers of professional ocean scientists and engineers working in the province. If you looked at the number of professionals working in Nova Scotia, you would have expected two or three times the amount of revenue flowing into the companies.

The problem, of course, lay in the fact that most of these professionals work for universities or government, the latter mainly with DFO, the Department of National Defence, or the National Research Council.

The NSOI was formed after an extensive consultation process in order to devise and execute strategies that would see private, public and academic resources cooperating and working in partnership. This might sound very mundane, but in fact for many years it hadn't taken place.

The concept of flexible networks would suggest itself in this process. Evidence that it can be successful is found in the joint venture activities of the Canadian Hydrographic Service which, working with other federal government departments, the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and the private sector, has conducted and promoted very successful ventures in ocean mapping. The recent Halifax economic summit provided an example of both government and industry working to display Canadian export expertise in informatics and surveillance.

At present, NSOI has about 125 members drawn from three sectors. Companies represented range from one-man consulting firms to manufacturers employing over 300 people. There are seven federal departments and agencies, four provincial agencies, and three universities with members in NSOI. The initiative is governed by an elected council of seven private sector members, four from government and two from universities, and right now we're in the process of hiring an executive director.

I'll get to the Oceans Act in a minute, but perhaps I could touch briefly on the Nova Scotia ocean industries. They cover a multitude of activities: ocean weather forecasting, naval architecture, aquaculture, software and system development, the traditional fishery, survival training. In this last activity, a company based in Dartmouth has developed into a company with worldwide exports of goods and services. It also covers advanced electronics companies, recreation and tourism, and boat building. These are but a few of the companies and people represented in NSOI.

.1905

However, since at this early stage in our development the NSOI is concerned with creating linkages between industry and government labs and universities, we are concentrating on the so-called knowledge-based activities. Inclusion of other wealth-generating enterprises will follow, as we hope will links to parallel organizations in other provinces.

Within Nova Scotia there are about 100 companies in this knowledge-based sector. They employ about 1,500 people and generate annual revenues of approximately $200 million. We believe if we are successful in harnessing the skill capabilities of the public and university sectors to existing and new enterprises, we could foresee a doubling of employment and revenues over the next five years.

The technique for accomplishing this is to develop an agreed oceans strategy, one to which all sectors subscribe. We believe that legislation, although it cannot ensure these goals, can foster the climate in which they can be achieved. We believe the proposed Oceans Act will assist us to attain these goals.

Before I go on to deal with the Oceans Act, I'd like to spend a moment citing a foreign source who has proposed a similar approach. Dr. Robert Knecht is the co-director of the study of marine policy at the University of Delaware. He has gone into this whole matter of creating a consensual oceans strategy in a paper he calls just that: ``A Consensual Approach to a National Oceans Strategy: How Far Can It Go?'' He has suggested that overregulation in fact inhibits the development of a national strategy. His thesis is that freedom of action in the aggregate amounts to a very substantial resource, and if it's used to further an agreed set of goals, it could make an important start in the direction of a more coherent ocean and coastal strategy.

This brings us to the proposed Oceans Act, which we see as an important piece of enabling legislation, but one whose promise to foster sustainable development of our oceans will depend very much on the level and spirit of the consultation process envisioned in the act.

The NSOI applauds the proposed Oceans Act. From the very broadest perspective it signals an awareness of the importance of our oceans and that Canada is a maritime nation, a fact that we who live by the sea sometimes feel is forgotten in the centre of the country. The very fact that it's now called the Oceans Act perhaps widens the whole perspective from the fisheries and oceans connotation, which has always been weighed very heavily in favour of the fisheries side.

We see it as providing a mandate for oversight previously never expressed in one department. Overlap and duplication do not foster growth. Business would, for reasons of efficiency, wish to interact with as few regulatory authorities as practical in order to achieve managed growth. However, we think there is still some work to be done. The jurisdiction between DFO and Environment Canada is an area that could be clarified, and we can foresee in estuarine situations the possibility of overlapping jurisdictions between federal and provincial regulators.

The preamble sets out clearly a goal of fostering sustainable development. This is all well and good, but we note that the definition of ``sustainable'' is such that it could be equally cited to oppose economic activity as to foster it. The key lies in the penultimate paragraph of the preamble, which calls for the minister, ``in collaboration with interested persons and bodies'', to encourage ``the development and implementation of a national strategy''. Here we refer back to our earlier comments and remind members that the success of such a strategy will not be a result of a regulation, but of a buy-in by all of the interested parties during an ongoing cooperative process.

.1910

The NSOI is very much in favour of the declaration of our exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. This provides a clear sense of purpose and, from a business point of view, a defined framework in which to work.

As a matter of interest, we note that in the United Kingdom the private sector and government are already working together to foster an export of British technology for management of the exclusive economic zone. We certainly would be pleased to work with the Government of Canada and the provinces in a similar activity.

If I can now turn to some specific clauses, we would like to make some comments. You will observe that they tend to fall into our main theme, that of consultation.

Subclause 21(3) leaves some room for overlapping of responsibilities in estuarine waters. At the present time we do not wish to raise any issues of federal-provincial jurisdiction. We only note that this is a management loose end that is of considerable interest to the aquaculture industry.

Clauses 29 and 31 are fine as far as they go, but again the process after the legislation will be important. We would urge that among the interested bodies be included organizations such as the NSOI.

Clause 32 elicits the same comments, but we also suggest that the word ``shall'' be substituted for the word ``may'', as it is in clause 31. Although we are encouraged by the new awareness of the importance of the oceans represented by this bill, this small change would help to ensure that the climate of consultation is maintained.

We also note that subparagraph 32(c)(ii) does not define what an established advisory body is. We urge that a balance be struck between those groups that are sometimes viewed as opposing development and those advocating responsible economic activity.

Paragraph 33(1)(a) is subject to our same general comments on cooperation.

Paragraph 33(1)(c) provides an excellent opportunity for cooperation with the private sector in implementing the data-gathering and dissemination process. When one talks about privatization, one does not necessarily view turning over an entire responsibility to the private sector. This is in a case where the minister and his people can define what needs to be done and then have the private sector do it.

Clause 34 should allow for the minister to provide and coordinate logistics support, instead of just coordinate. This provision of support, of which either ship time or testing facilities are examples, has proven in the past to be beneficial to small companies entering the ocean market. It certainly would complement paragraph 42(i), which encourages the minister to participate in ocean technology development.

Paragraph 41(2)(e) could read ``support of other interested parties, departments and boards'', and the words ``Government of Canada'' should be struck out. This would provide the Canadian Coast Guard with a mandate for cooperative efforts to foster technical developments with the private sector.

Paragraph 42(i) could include the words ``participate in and foster ocean development''. Once again, this would provide for a somewhat more proactive role in the cooperative process with the private sector than you get from the sense of the present reading.

We would suggest adding the words ``and development'' after ``research'' in subparagraph 43(b)(i). Once again, this encourages closer cooperation between our members and government scientists, and this is the cornerstone of the NSOI vision for wealth generation.

In subclause 52(1), we're talking about fees. I think it has been the understanding of our members that here we've always been talking about fees for services. It raises a sore point between government and industry in the ocean sector, that being government competition.

I should say right now that the NSOI membership does not consider the DFO to be a particular offender in this matter. Usually they have been quite sensitive. The concern, of course, is over the fixing of fees that are unreasonably low, thus in effect providing taxpayer-subsidized competition. If there is a company out there that can produce wave forecasting, then DFO should not be providing wave forecasts at a cut rate.

.1915

As a part of the process arising from this proposed act, we would request that representative bodies of industry, such as the NSOI, be included by regulation in the fee determination process.

The NSOI has rather a different viewpoint on this whole issue of charging for services. Once a floor cost has been determined, which will preclude the situation of unfair competition - and this we addressed in our preceding paragraph - it doesn't seem sensible to forgo a profit. Why shouldn't the government make a profit? There's nothing wrong with making a profit. Government should, in the interests of the taxpayer, charge as much as the traffic will bear.

Appropriate arrangements could be made with smaller cash-poor companies for a share of downstream revenues if this is what is required to advance a promising idea. That is what we meant previously when we referred to the government assisting small companies with testing facilities. You may, however, have to go into some sort of deal that says if they are successful, then they will pay you back.

That's the end of our comments on the specific clauses.

In conclusion, I might say that NSOI supports, with pleasure, the proposed Oceans Act. Our comments and suggestions are all based on our goal of enhancing ocean industrial activity in Nova Scotia and throughout Canada, or the development of a cooperative milieu between the private sector, government and universities.

This bill, which we see as enabling legislation, advances our goals. Attainment of these goals is very much tied to the process that will follow as a result of the bill. The bill suggests a spirit of cooperation and consultation. I guess the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as far as we're concerned here. We trust this spirit will be realized and we assure the hon. members of your committee of our continued interest and our desire to help.

Thank you.

The Chairman: I want to thank you. For us, anyway, it is very positive and very productive to have that type of input from industry. I think one of the things a lot of people clearly miss when a piece of legislation like this comes forward is not what it takes from them or what further burdens it imposes on them - it's what opportunities it presents.

Coming from Dartmouth, where a lot of those wonderful companies are locating - and we'd like to see lots more - the reality is that there is a tremendous growth potential in ocean industries. One thing we have to do as government, I think, is to ensure there is a very sharp focus on ocean industries generally, rather than on just managing the fish while forgetting about everything else. It is clear by the very presence of your organization here that there is a heck of a lot more to the oceans than just the management of fish. I am really pleased to see the comments you've made.

I have two questions. One question deals with the fact that you say the proof is in the pudding. Once this gets outside the realm of public comment - because it is being considered as a piece of legislation as well as parliamentary review - do you think it would be advisable that there be a two- or three-year compulsory review on fisheries and oceans by the standing committee in order to make sure that once it leaves here, goes through the legislative process and becomes law, and once the regulators draft the regulations, gazette them, and get them out there, the lofty goals that have been set are actually being achieved? This has been suggested by others who have appeared before this committee so that when there are problems, they are being dealt with rather than being left in the legislation, perhaps to drift.

Would you suggest that we look at an amendment requiring that this act come back for review before a parliamentary committee, say, in two years' time?

Mr. Macpherson: I can't see that it would hurt. I would hope that if things were not going correctly, organizations such as ours, or any other group, would not feel they had to contain themselves until such time as the review process arose.

The Chairman: I agree. I've only been here for about seven years, but one of the things that seems to work is a goalpost stating that by this point in time, this thing is going to be reviewed and be reviewed critically to see that the goals and the purposes set out two or three years ago have been attained.

.1920

It keeps two groups sharp: first, the ministers and their political staff who are responsible for the act; and second, the bureaucrats who administer the act. It keeps them sharp because they know fully well that there's going to be a report card at some point. And that's why I say that if there's a compulsory review within the department on an ongoing basis, you're probably going to have people ensuring that the act is progressing as it should.

Mr. Fred Guptill (Member, Advisory Council, Nova Scotia Oceans Initiative): It is something we discussed in the meeting the other day. I believe there are precedents in other similar pieces of legislation.

The Chairman: The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which we did just a few years ago, is an example of where it has been a very productive thing. They knew there was a parliamentary review coming, so there was a working group within the department. As a result, some of the problems of regulations that may not have met the intent and goals of the bill were dealt with at the time, rather than letting them linger.

Mr. Macpherson: I'm hesitating because I'm trying to get my mind around how one sets the goalposts that we then use to assess the efficacy of the effort. I'm sure a group like NSOI would have quite different goalposts from someone far more concerned with the maintenance of a particular ecosystem. I'm sure that if I put on my cottage-owner and home-base hats, I might come up with different sets of criteria.

But we did discuss this, and I do think that if we can come to some sort of conclusion on a good mechanism of how these goalposts are determined, it is worthwhile to try to measure them after a set period of time. Three years seems to me somewhat short, though. I think development of any industrial strategy that hopes to see significant returns coming in under five years is probably not realistic.

The Chairman: This is my second question, and it will be my last. You indicated you would like to see further clarification between the roles and responsibilities of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada. One of the things our committee has raised repeatedly is that there are a number of pieces of legislation that would seem to be more correctly placed under a new Oceans Act just for the sake of administrative simplicity, but they are not there. There are some aspects of part IV of the Canada Environmental Protection Act, dealing with ocean disposal, that are still being administered by Environment Canada. I personally believe it should be incorporated under this new act, as should the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.

Would that help, in your mind, to clarify any possible misunderstanding about who is responsible? Is that the type of thing you would like to see?

Mr. Macpherson: I believe it would. There's a tendency that once you have a larger organization with responsibilities in a smaller sphere, trying to coexist in an organization that is really looking at something else most of the time, the smaller groups tend to get left out. So if you brought them under one head that had the oceans as its specific responsibility, you might get a better result.

The Chairman: I lied. I said that was my last question, but I have one more.

You said you wanted clarification on the federal and provincial roles in dealing with estuaries. One of the previous witnesses talked about that and specifically indicated the clause - is it 28? - of the legislation that specifically excludes rivers and lakes primarily. It was suggested that nobody wants to get into the constitutionality of whose responsibility it is, but in the bill, clause 28 specifically excludes the rivers and lakes.

The question then becomes how far up an estuary is the federal responsibility? Shouldn't you just sort of be silent on it and allow for good solid consultation when you're dealing with management regimes? How do you think we should deal with it? Should clause 28 be removed? Should it just be silent? Or should there be some clause to tell the federal minister that he should consult in estuarine areas, and that in developing the management plan he should consult with provincial jurisdictions? How do we deal with that?

.1925

Mr. Macpherson: Let me put my answer in the context of two personal experiences - one experience and one sort of potential.

I live at the mouth of Martins River down in Mahone Bay. If something messy is happening right off my waterfront, do I call the province or do I call the feds? I don't want to call somebody and get an answer saying to call the other person.

The Chairman: Yes. Do you know your MP?

Mr. Macpherson: The other experience came -

The Chairman: You should call your MP when that happens.

Mr. Macpherson: No. I'd call my provincial MLA.

The other comes from the time I spent on the council of the town of Bedford. We used to have a couple of occasions when people would get flooded. The poor old householder would call up and then the ball would start bouncing between the town and the province. I think we tried to adopt the notion that if a householder called up, the town would solve the problem immediately and would sort out afterwards who was responsible, who should pay and any other downstream fallout.

What I would like to see - and I'm not sure how you're going to do it, but I guess that's what your job is - is a regime that says that in areas of uncertainty, so-and-so will take the immediate action and then sort it out after.

Mr. Guptill: By way of underlining that sort of comment, I think it's safe to say that the development of an aquaculture industry in Nova Scotia has been delayed by perhaps a decade simply by the lack of clarity of overlapping jurisdiction in coastal water.

The Chairman: As a result we've probably lost tens of millions of dollars in revenue in the fisheries.

Mr. Guptill: Oh, there's no question, sir, regrettably. The aquaculture industry in New Brunswick is worth $100 million a year.

The Chairman: It's gone up. It's about $130 million a year now.

Mr. Guptill: So tens of millions is a conservative estimate.

Mr. Macpherson: Interestingly enough, the aquaculture industry generates somewhere over $100,000 in revenue per employee, which is well up there with the more productive manufacturing industries. It's that type of revenue generation per job that generates the excess money that goes into the Commonwealth and creates schools, hospitals and whatever else we need.

The Chairman: Does anybody else have questions?

I want to thank you for your presentation. I'm glad to see that you're supportive.

As for the comments dealing with language, we've had a number of presentations dealing specifically with that. If you do another reread of this and see that there are a few other things where you could suggest language that gives more strength to the bill, more enforcement or some clarity, I would encourage you to fax it to the clerk. We'll ensure that it's appended to your brief.

I want to thank you very much for sticking in there today and for your productive comments.

Next we have the West Nova Fishermen's Coalition. We have the vice-president, Mr. Henry Surette.

Henry, I kept seeing your striped shirt there before, but I didn't get a good look at you. I want to thank you for hanging in this afternoon. We'll give the microphone over to you.

Mr. Henry Surette (Vice-President, West Nova Fishermen's Coalition): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess it's fairly easy to make statements like my last two predecessors here if you don't represent fishermen. I'm sure Stuart Beaton represents a group of one, so it's.... Anyway, here it goes.

I've been fishing for the last 37 years and up until about 14 years ago I was just a fisherman. Then I became involved in organizations, not because I was the smartest guy on the shore, but I guess I cared a lot. I had two sons growing up and I wanted to save a part of their...a part for them.

I took on regimes like DFO and the Canadian Coast Guard that had millions of dollars, and I had just my income to support me, Mr. Chairman. I'll give you a ``for instance''. In 1989 I fished 25 days and the rest was donated to my fellow fishermen for the cause.

.1930

In my community, family values are very high. Church is something we attend, not something we try to miss. The crime rate is very low. In my recollection there's been only one arrest in my lifetime. The young generation was very busy fishing, too busy to get in trouble. So you see, there's a lot more than fish at stake here. I think the young people deserve a better chance at life.

I'm really concerned right now because I can't transfer my licence to my son. I want to transfer all my licences and all I can transfer is my lobster licence. After all those years I think I've failed miserably because what I worked for I can't give to him. It's very scary.

In the 1700s the Acadians were expelled to the United States. For us it's no different today, but the expulsion of the fishermen won't have any discrimination against race or creed and it won't matter who you are. Half must go, according to the federal government.

But we don't have to go. There's a whole body of underutilized species out there that we can fish. I can give you an example, but.... There are major fisheries out there and all I need is the will and some help from the federal government to do this.

You spend hundreds of millions of dollars on training programs to train people to be hairdressers. I'm sure that per capita in Atlantic Canada there are more hairdressers than there are in Hollywood. We're going to be the smartest-looking group of people in the world.

The people there are trained to be plant workers. They're happy there. Their life is there and we don't have to move them. The infrastructure is there, the people, the plants. We can create a whole new world.

We're missing the boat. The resource is out there. Let's go after it. I'm thinking of crabs and clams and other species out there that are an untapped resource. We're missing the boat, Mr. Chairman. There are millions of dollars lying untapped on the bottom, untapped only because of the lack of will of the federal government.

I've been trying for years to get these fisheries opened and I'm just railroaded by the bureaucrats. They say, well, we'll try it next year, and so far it hasn't worked. We're losing both ways because you're paying the people to stay home and we're losing the new dollars we could be creating out there. What a waste.

People in Atlantic Canada don't want to move to Toronto. What are they going to do there? We can't expel the people from Atlantic Canada. That's where their hearts and their lives are.

I was in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago at a Coast Guard meeting and I was approached by one of the Group of 8 who said that they needed my help, that I could organize the fishermen and pass this legislation. If I wanted to sell out my fishermen, I could have had $100,000 that day. He said if I could do it, they'd make sure I'd get $1 million because they're going to make millions out of this.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not for sale. I gave up a major part of my life and a lot of my income and believe me, my family suffered very much. I'm not for sale.

.1935

But I'll tell you, it's very serious for us out there. I had never seen the Oceans Act. I hadn't been able to get hold of a copy.

Licensing fees are going to be.... If we treat the ocean as a factory, then we can use licensing fees; there's no problem. But it doesn't work like that. If we put licensing fees, people are going to try to find a way to pay for it and the resource is going to pay. We don't want cheaters. We don't want to create a whole new group of cheaters out there trying to survive.

A couple of weeks ago I was in Boston - this isn't about bragging - and I was awarded the person of the year for Canada. A group of buyers came up to me and said, Henry, you have to stop this because we're going to own you as we did before; we're going to pay these licensing fees and then we're going to pay what we need to pay you to get your product because we're going to own it.

That's not what Canada's about. That's not what my father went to war for. It's totally against what I think Canada believes in. In the fishing industry we certainly don't believe in what's going on.

I think the ocean deserves a fair chance. If we could close half the ocean and let the fishermen go fish, the worst damage they could do is that all of the fish in the 50% of the ocean that's closed would survive - that is, if you don't give them all a quota to fish. ``Quota'' is the last word you want to hear about. You name me a fishery in the world that's survived with quota systems. The quota system doesn't work. We proved it in Canada. Our lobster fishery in southwestern Nova Scotia works; it's one of the better fisheries in the world and it doesn't have a quota. It's run on trap limits and seasons, and when the fish are spawning they're shut down. They seem to be open to the natives, but we don't agree with that one.

I could go on all night, but my heart is getting heavy. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

The Chairman: The first thing, Henry, is that in this particular bill there's very little to do with fees, but we hear what you're saying on fees and on the privatization of the fishery. They are issues we've dealt with in a way on two separate occasions, but not with any conclusion.

When the next piece of legislation comes in, which is the amendments to the Fisheries Act, they are issues that are obviously going to have to be addressed. I think the comments you made will be helpful in helping us get our heads in the right direction as to the impact of things like fees on the likelihood of small-boat fishermen being able to continue to fish.

We heard all kinds of opinions here today dealing with the fisheries. On the oceans side of it, what this bill is attempting to do, and what we're trying to get some comment on, is to see whether or not there is some consensus on the establishment of an Oceans Act. In the past the only thing we ever saw the ocean for was to get fish. You've raised some interesting and important concerns about the people who have been exploiting the primary resource of the oceans, the fishermen. There has to be great care given that when any piece of legislation comes in that may have an impact, first and foremost, those individuals who have for centuries relied on that particular resource for a living must be consulted.

I want to thank you for taking the time and for giving us those insights.

Does anybody over on this side have a comment? Mr. Verran.

Mr. Verran: I want to thank Henry for taking the time to appear. I spoke with Henry when he was in Ottawa for his last meeting, as he mentioned, two weeks ago.

.1940

Henry, I know you are a true representative of a certain sector of the fishing people and persons in South West Nova, and I know you speak with compassion on behalf of the fishery.

I saw you about two and a half hours ago when you first arrived and then you disappeared. In relationship to the hairdresser thing, if I did not know better I'd think that because they are so plentiful, you probably bumped into one on the way back in because you're all slicked back now. You'd think someone had just done a job on you.

But seriously, we know there are problems. We on the fisheries committee are aware that the shellfish and lobster fishery is the most lucrative and best managed fishery in Nova Scotia, and as you mentioned there aren't quotas on that.

I'm sure your comments to the committee will be taken very seriously, because when it comes to the betterment and the sustainability of the fishery, you are known by all the committee members to have the best interests of that fishery and the people you represent at heart. The chairman and the committee will take your comments very seriously as we look at the information and the input people like yourself have given this committee meeting today.

I thank you again, Henry, for your input.

The Chairman: I'm sure we're going to hear from you again, Henry, because in the next couple of weeks I suspect we're going to have further hearings with either this medium or travel involved, or a combination of the two. I have you on my list here and would encourage you, when those particular provisions come up, to come share more of your feelings and viewpoints about the future direction of the fisheries, and how licensing, access fees and all those things will have an impact on coastal communities and the people who have lived on that resource and in many cases been the custodians of that resource. They are the people you represent and the family you came from - fishermen.

Ms Novaczek: I would like to take a moment to emphasize what Henry just said. You asked me whether I had a number for marine-protected areas. Henry just gave you the number of 50%.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you, Henry.

We're going to go to our last witness, from the Coastal Communities Network, Ishbel Munro.

Mr. Jim Legge (Representative, Coastal Communities Network): Ishbel Munro couldn't make it. My name is Jim Legge.

For people on the committee who don't know what the Coastal Communities Network is, we're a group of people who meet once a month to talk about the issues of our coastal communities. Lately we have dealt primarily with fisheries. We are not a registered type of body, but we spend a lot of time and work very hard with our coastal communities.

Our group includes representatives from the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the United Church, some maritime fishermen's unions - not only the MFU, but the EFF - coastal and community development workers, municipal people, mayors and so on. We do whatever work we can with coastal communities.

We are concerned with the Oceans Act and I've maybe heard some alarm bells raised. We probably don't understand it all because it took a long time for anyone to really get a copy of it.

.1945

We are in favour of the ratification part for the international Law of the Sea. We realize that's very important and should be done. However, in the other clauses that deal with the fisheries and the immediate parts of the ocean connected to our shorelines in Nova Scotia, we worry that the coastal communities and the people involved in the coastal communities - not only the fishermen who make their livings straight from the ocean - need to be consulted in coastal zone management.

We are proponents of a co-management system of the fishery. We're not so sure we have exactly the same definition of co-management as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, but we believe strongly in fishermen making the decisions of how the fishery is run, balanced by scientists, ecologists, DFO, as well as community workers and people who dwell in the communities and depend so much on the fisheries for their sociological and economic impact.

I live in the Sambro area, which is very close to Halifax. We're fortunate right now that a community quota system has been allowed. It has been of extreme benefit to our community in that it has spaced out the volume of fish coming into the community in such a way that our plant workers have been able to keep working. We haven't had to rely very heavily on things like TAGS or anything else. The sense of community builds and builds because the fishermen can fish, the plant workers can work, and the community benefits from that.

Sitting here representing coastal communities, we are concerned with the idea that there should be some form of coastal zone management; we shouldn't just deal specifically with the ocean part of it. I realize you're in a very difficult situation trying to deal with the oceans as DFO and federal people versus the provincial and municipal responsibilities to go with it, but at the same time the consultative process needs to be enforced. In order to make decisions that are so important and that affect the lives of people living in the communities, and not only the fishermen themselves who are on the ocean, a consultative process needs to be followed as well.

I had the opportunity to attend the Coastal Zone Canada '94 conference that was held in Halifax in September of last year. I was a total rookie to the whole idea and was totally amazed. I felt like a fish out of water, but I quickly learned that what I had to say as a community person living on the coast was listened to and respected.

There was something really amazing about that coastal zone conference, with all the scientists, ecologists and very few fishermen or actual community people, although the people obviously lived in communities next to the ocean or close to it. At the end of the conference, with fourteen different workshops reporting back on the last day, every single workshop reported that coastal zone management must be consultative and must include the coastal zone communities.

The feeling about the Oceans Act - and I realize you're trying to break that down - is that it has been written in isolation, with very little consultation with the fishermen or coastal communities. Obviously, with the two-page listing of the people who have been consulted that you held up earlier, I realize some people were consulted. But at the same time there have been an awful lot of people in this area who feel they haven't been consulted. We worry about that process probably as much as anything.

.1950

You've been fortunate enough to see some of the differences of opinion as to how the fisheries should be managed, ITQs versus whatever, and that argument can go on forever.

I also sit at the Nova Scotia round table as the Coastal Communities Network representative. I sit at the round table with fishermen and fishermen's organizations. I don't know if you got the statement from the last Nova Scotia round table, which was directed to Mr. Tobin, but it had to do with the Oceans Act. I can honestly say it was one of the first times there was complete consensus on the concerns expressed by our own members of that group. Some pretty amazing things happened at that meeting, and if nothing else, the Oceans Act did contribute to the complete consensus, which we had probably for the first time on any specific issue. It was really wonderful.

But at the same time, the concerns that are -

The Chairman: Can I interrupt? Could you just tell our researcher the date of that and which document you are talking about?

Mr. Legge: It would have been dated October 23. It was a statement from the Nova Scotia fisheries associations of the Nova Scotia round table, October 23, 1995, to the Hon. Brian Tobin. I could read it if that might help, or I could send it to you.

The Chairman: I'm trying to reference this. Is there a petition with it?

Mr. Legge: Yes, it's signed by everyone at the round table.

The Chairman: Okay, we have that.

Mr. Legge: Okay, good.

The Chairman: Can I just add something? There was no briefing done by anybody. Did somebody give a briefing to the group on the contents of the Oceans Act? Was that done at that meeting?

I have a petition here. We've had four witnesses who have all indicated their opposition to licensing fees and access fees, none of which are in this bill. So can you help me out? How did this come about? I mean, the round table took place -

Mr. Legge: It's not exactly that. It doesn't mention licensing fees. Earlier one presenter, Joe Boudreau, brought it up and had it tabled at the meeting. He had got a legal opinion on it, and for the people who had seen it, there were worries about the problems with it. This was discussed at the round table.

Essentially, the third part just says it formalizes mechanisms for privatization of the resource into the hands of corporations. It specifically excludes any option for fishers to elect representatives to bodies for the purpose of co-management or self-management. It allows for imposition of new access and/or user charges without any assessment of the impact on the fishing communities. It lacks fundamental principles, such as the need for primary access to fisheries resources by inshore owner-operators in their communities.

I don't know if you have that document there or not.

The Chairman: Yes, I do. I guess the problem I have as a committee chair is that I haven't seen the legal opinion on which all of this round-table discussion took place. I asked for it earlier, because I'm not sure that legal opinion is one I would hold. I'm objective in looking at this bill; I've been critical of the bill. I don't think that legal opinion, as it was relayed to me, is necessarily a proper interpretation of the bill.

Because nearly everybody we've heard today is responding to that legal opinion that nobody ever gave us, I've asked for the opinion. When that comes, our committee will also look at it and get legal counsel on it. I've also asked that somebody from the department give a briefing to anybody who is interested, and that will be done.

.1955

Some of the concerns, I hope, are misplaced; some others may not be. However, I think some of the concern that came out of that meeting may be rectified by a thorough and forthright briefing from the department, which we're arranging tomorrow and the next day for early next week.

Mr. Legge: I was here earlier as you were saying that there is a definite education thing that needs to be done and the DFO is going to be directed to do exactly that. Believe me, that would be greatly appreciated. That gives someone an opportunity to have at least DFO's interpretation of the legalese of that bill, which is very difficult to read and very hard to get through.

What essentially was a gut reaction, and obviously a gut reaction against DFO, and what has generally been felt is that what's being presented is essentially a ``trust me'' document. We're worried that it's a ``trust me'' document. There are some ``may''s and ``shall''s and in my going over it, sometimes I feel there should be a ``shall'' instead of a ``may'' and there should have been ``may''s instead of the ``shall''s.

That's part of the consultative process and of my understanding what is being attempted to be put through the House of Commons. The difficulty is for someone in the community to understand in the first place and to have access to the information on what's going on. In the consultative process no one in our community, or for that matter anybody at that round table or their associations, was consulted. So it's a straight gut reaction, as it were. That could be because of ingnorance, but at the same time it could also be an ignorance based on fear.

We have good cause to be fearful because our communities are at stake. If this Oceans Act doesn't protect us and doesn't protect our fishermen, and if someone's interpretation says it's going to privatize the fishery or give DFO the opportunity to do that, then obviously we're going to react in a negative way. That is a major concern.

It's also a matter of getting out into the community and educating the community, including the fishermen and including DFO, on what co-management is and what it really means. There is an opportunity here, and hopefully you will take it and DFO will take it, to do exactly that - to get out into the community and talk about those kinds of issues that are so crucial to it. If you have enabling legislation that will allow you to do that or direct DFO to do it, that's wonderful, without a doubt. However, we are concerned that we understand what the bill means before it is passed. It's very important to our communities that we do understand so that we're not constantly putting out fires. This is one that we can either help you to build or at least be involved in building our own fire.

The Chairman: I fully agree. We didn't draft this legislation. This legislation was drafted by the department. It was given to a committee. We're trying to explore a whole bunch of options.

We've had some excellent people. CARC is one of the leading organizations. There were 76 different participants at their round tables that fed into their presentation of last week. They did an exhaustive analysis of the bill on almost a line-by-line basis. They addressed some of the issues you raised about the strength of language, and we have to consider that when it comes forward. When I look down here in Nova Scotia at the CARC workshops that took place, there were probably 20 different individuals or groups represented during those workshops on the lead-up to this legislation.

But I take what you say to be very serious. I want to make sure that the people who appear before this committee appear and give input after they've had an opportunity to get the best information on a bill.

I think the fact that this document has come out slows us down a little bit today, but I think we'll get back on track. The witnesses we've had here today have come to talk about access fees, which are not in the bill. They're just not there. They're in another bill that I think is coming, but they're not in this bill. I have great respect for the fact that they're here to represent their point of view, but I want them to understand what's in the bill.

.2000

So we're going to get that briefing and do a quick follow-up through the committee. After the briefing is done, the clerk will do a follow-up to see if they want to add further comments. I think that's important for the process.

Mr. Legge: I don't know what CARC is. What group is that?

The Chairman: It's the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee.

Mr. Legge: Pardon me. I literally have no idea who they are. I've never heard of them before, so I'd love to know. I too would like to see that list. That would be something worth knowing because again, it's about understanding who was there and how their representation was there.

It's the same in talking to some people.... I believe Mike Butler was here earlier and I've talked to him. He said he felt it was drafted in isolation. That sort of thing concerns us. If our concerns can be dissuaded.... We're not trying to be unreasonable at all, but we do need to feel confident because of the crisis in the fishery. And it's not only because of the crisis in the fishery, but because we are concerned about our communities. I think the concerns are well-founded.

The Chairman: I'm also going to ask the department members who drafted this legislation to give us as complete a list as they can of the groups and individuals who were consulted during the period of time this bill was coming together. I'll tell you, of all the pieces of legislation I've seen over seven years, this was one that, if I look at the broad groups and umbrella organizations out there, has the most support of any piece of legislation I've seen as a legislator in seven years.

There are changes that should be made. There are some refinements. There possibly should be some additions. But almost to a person the groups that have been consulted - and I have the list so everybody can have a look at that - have been supportive. The comment I've been getting in letters from these organizations is that it may not be exactly as broad as they want, but it is a very necessary step in the right direction. They're saying not to hold up the bill, please.

We've indicated that we will keep the bill as long as we think it's important for us to keep it so people can have an opinion and can have input into the bill. We're going to make sure that by early next week, I hope, everybody down in Nova Scotia who has expressed an interest and a concern about not being consulted has a chance to have expert review of the bill.

Mr. Legge: That's right.

The Chairman: Okay. Are there any other questions?

I have a question on the network itself. I'm very much aware of the network. I think the work being done is extremely good because it ensures there's a focus back on the community. It also indicates that when you're managing a resource like the fisheries, you always have to understand that it isn't just dollars and cents and it isn't just which kill technology is the best and most efficient for the dollars. There are other factors, and those other factors include sustainability of communities.

We have thought considerably about this around this table and have come to no consensus about gear selectivity when you deal with the fisheries in particular, and what a definition of a sustainable fisheries is. Where does the economic viability or the maximization of economic viability fit into the definition?

Clearly if you just want to get into a discussion on fisheries - which we're sort of not into today - it's easy to say that if you only want to maximize the value of the resource, you'll have a certain type of fishery with a certain type of technology and a certain type of licensing. If you are concerned about using the resource in a sustainable fashion for the benefit of coastal communities, you'll have a completely different model of the fisheries and the management regime of the fisheries.

I think it's only unfortunately since the collapse of the ground fishery, the cod fishery, that it's come home to a lot of policy makers that the secondary consideration about sustainability of coastal communities has to be a number one and heavy prerequisite when you're trying to put those models together.

.2005

So I want to make that comment to assure you that members of this committee, all of whom come from coastal communities, were very much aware of that and appreciate the work that's done and encourage you to continue your monthly meetings and to continue that type of dialogue. It's important to us.

Do you have any further questions? Okay, that being said then, I think we're going to talk to you again next week after we organize those briefings.

Mr. Legge: There's one other thing. We have done workshops and so on about co-management of the fisheries. We have a beginning document, and I will make sure you get a copy of that if you don't already have one, because it is an extremely good document. It was put together by fishermen, fishermen's associations, and coastal people.

The Chairman: Do we by any chance have your address?

Mr. Legge: You will if you want me to leave it with the committee.

The Chairman: It is maddening to me that we have all these people who may not have had the best access to information. There was a briefing document given by the department two or three weeks ago. One of the things we're going to do is - and I'm going to ask the clerk right now - as a first step, perhaps we can get that overview document photocopied and sent to the witnesses who were here this afternoon and who were particularly concerned about access fees and the like. As a first step, tomorrow morning that will be on its way to you.

Mr. Legge: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: That concludes our hearings for today.

At 9 a.m. tomorrow, folks, we have a briefing from the department on one of the issues that was raised today with respect to the powers of the minister under this bill, so that if there's a misrepresentation of what that is, we can correct it as we go on over the next couple of days.

We stand adjourned.

;