EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 2, 1995

.1832

[English]

The Chairman: Some of us are here and some of us are on the way. I guess some people needed a larger supper than others tonight. Anyway, we are back. Can you hear me out in beautiful British Columbia?

Mr. Philip Eidsvik (Pacific Fisherman Alliance, Vancouver): Yes, it is beautiful and I can hear you fine.

The Chairman: You can hear me? Okay. How are you doing?

Mr. Eidsvik: I'm doing fine.

The Chairman: You're here replacing Paddy tonight, are you?

Mr. Eidsvik: Yes, Paddy is unfortunately tied up in Prince Rupert. He said, ``Phil, I'll tell you what to say, and you go say it for me.'' I said I would be happy to.

The Chairman: Phil, he may have told you what he thought you should say, but I'm quite sure that you're going to say what you want to say anyway.

Mr. Eidsvik: That's only a rumour.

The Chairman: Okay. Phil Eidsvik from the Pacific Fisherman Alliance is our first witness tonight, from beautiful downtown Vancouver. Before we start, is it raining out down there?

Mr. Eidsvik: No, I told you it was a beautiful day. We're enjoying the sun, it's paradise. You guys are in the wrong town.

The Chairman: I know that both coasts are paradise. You know, I suspect it's probably a balmy 75 or 80 degrees in Halifax right now as well.

Okay, enough of that banter. Why don't we get going. You know what we're examining, it's Bill C-98, the Oceans Act. It has been referred to us after second reading and we're trying to get some input as to whether or not the interest group stakeholders believe this is a good bill or is not a good bill. Is it a good bill ``but''? If there are some ``buts'', what do you think we should be doing to try to make it a better bill?

That being said, I'm turning it over to you, Phil. It's all yours.

Mr. Eidsvik: It's nice of you to take the time to talk to us out here on the west coast. I know Paddy certainly appreciates the phone call and the invitation, and I'm happy to appear here for him.

There were three or four issues we had concerns about when we read the bill. I think there are some good changes in there, but I'll quickly go through our concerns. Then if you've got some questions.... We're not experts on this bill, so we're certainly not going to take up 45 minutes of your time.

The first thing we were concerned about was whether the bill is taking precedence over the Fisheries Act in some areas. We're nervous about that when we see some of the components of it, because we think the Fisheries Act, despite its flaws, has developed over the last hundred years to manage fish so far in the best way that we can. We're nervous about a new act that may or may not take precedence. I'm sure as committee members you'll be looking at that issue, but I did want to bring it to your attention.

It brings us into partnership agreements, and this is an example of why I'm worried about precedence. For example, could the minister enter into a partnership agreement that may override a provision or provisions of the Fisheries Act regarding the harvesting of fish within our territorial waters? We have problems with partnership agreements. To some extent they're supported, but we find that the minister is able to do certain things through partnership agreements that he may not be able to do through the Fisheries Act. I can give you an example through the aboriginal communal licence regulations, which we've had our debates about.

.1835

In that particular licence there's a provision whereby they can sign a partnership agreement with aboriginal bands. Where there's conflict between the Fisheries regulations and the aboriginal licence regulations, the aboriginal licence regulations supersede the Fisheries regulations.

We're concerned about those type of issues. When we see the large amount of delegation of authority to the minister in this bill, it's a point that we want to bring up.

The third issue is, of course, the aboriginal component. I've seen it mentioned many times in the briefing papers regarding this particular bill. We just want to make sure that the regulations outside the food fish, if they're going to be applied to other fishermen, will be applied to every fisherman, no matter who they are - of course with the exception of section 35 regulations.

The fourth thing that we keep hammering on is enforcement. There are some great provisions in here for enforcement. We have a terrible shortage of enforcement resources in B.C. already, even with the inclusion of some of the coast guard staff into the enforcement resources. How can we possibly hope to undertake the additional enforcement duties mentioned in this bill with our existing resources?

Perhaps this is a time to correct something that we think is lacking in the Fisheries Act. Though it talks a lot about enforcement, there is no ministerial provision to maintain a certain level of enforcement. To us that is DFO's number one priority over anything else. We can talk all we want here about making rules and laws, but if there are no fish cops to enforce those laws, our time in here is wasted.

One of the key things we'd like to see is something in the bill such that no matter which government is in power and no matter which government has priorities, enforcement is still number one - and we're talking about all the fisheries.

Those are the four basic points that we wanted to bring up. They're pretty generic; I think they apply to inland fisheries, to the coast, and to fisheries outside the 200-mile limit. I hope they're of some use to you.

The Chairman: Okay. The questions you raised are questions that have been raised earlier as well, Phil. We had some fishermen in yesterday from the east coast and they raised some similar concerns. So we specifically requested yesterday that the department come back, and they were the first witnesses today. I'm going to see if I can read my writing from early this morning.

The department has assured us, in response to questions raised yesterday, which were almost identical, that there is nothing in this bill that deals with fees - you didn't raise that, but we might as well get that one out of the way - fishing fees, access fees to the fishery. There was nothing in this bill that would impact on management agreements in the fisheries - am I correct? Somebody from the department nod yes for me; you make me nervous when nobody nods. Also, this bill has no impact at all on fisheries allocation, quotas or ITQs, as opposed to competitive fishery, or anything like that.

The partnership agreements are basically referred to for the integrated management plans - am I right? They talk about management plans coming up, which are totalled and include the fisheries, so that if there's an integrated management plan for a particular region that comes forward, it compels the minister to ensure that there are representatives from the stakeholders, and one of the largest stakeholders, obviously, is the fishermen. But this bill in no way at all deals with things such as access fees for the fisheries, quota.... Everybody here can do it by rote, I think, because we asked them so often.

However, the new question that you asked deals with enforcement. Indeed, one of our past witnesses specifically pointed out that there's not a lot of mention in this bill of enforcement. You raise a good point; we've heard about the problem on the west coast with sufficient resources being allocated for enforcement of the fisheries regulations as they currently stand. I know with the AFS that there has been an increased pressure on the limited enforcement dollars that are available. That has caused great trouble in the fisheries, and the west coast was the place that proved it to us.

.1840

Does anybody from the department, since we're hooked up to the coast, want to mention anything with respect to enforcement, and whether or not the department feels that this bill, by conferring new requirements on the minister, will have any impact on that very small enforcement budget?

Mr. Don Kowal (Director, Resource Allocation Branch, Pacific, Arctic and Inland Waters, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I'm Don Kowal with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans - I'm director of the pacific resource allocation branch.

This particular bill does have some enforcement provisions to it, but the actual working out of the impacts is still under review, as are other enforcement aspects related to our recent combination with the coast guard. We are aware that there will be some enforcement components and these are under consideration now, as we review the joining up with the coast guard.

The Chairman: But that just deals with the coast guard. Are those the new duties that have been transferred over to the minister through consolidation?

Mr. Kowal: That's correct.

The Chairman: Okay. But the issue that was raised by Phil, which I think is a legitimate issue - and on the west coast of Canada we've heard this repeatedly - is that there is a major concern about the amount of resources that have been made available for enforcement; indeed, the resources have been cut back. Even when some were given back, it's still less than what it was a few years ago. Is there any potential that anything in this bill could further stress that budget for fisheries and forestry?

Mr. Kowal: I would doubt that very much.

One of the duties that we've undertaken very seriously is the development of integrated fish plants. As we develop these plants, we set out what the priorities are in each of the fisheries and very much take into consideration whether in fact we have the resources in enforcement to provide adequate monitoring for the plant. With any situation we set up, this will be taken into consideration.

The Chairman: Was that a yes, or is it a qualified ``I hope not''?

Mr. Kowal: No; as we mentioned earlier, we will be integrating all our efforts, and my answer to you is I do not think there will be a major impact on our enforcement resources through this bill.

The Chairman: Phil, do you have any other comments now that we've put that departmental specialist on the hook? He's on the record.

Mr. Eidsvik: Yes. I agree, it's a tough one because they have only a limited budget. We're looking at a new act, and it's just as Tobin said in the United Nations when he made the speech to NAFO - he talked about wasting time in a room, because without the enforcement resources, whatever is done at the United Nations is a waste.

I'm wondering if in the new act there is some way to legislate a level of enforcement or an enforcement component so that it doesn't leave so much flexibility for an administration to amend enforcement levels depending on budgetary problems. This may be a fairly radical approach, but I think the importance of enforcement and the problems we've had in the last decade signify that maybe our present approach isn't sufficient. Maybe our legislative drafters can tackle this one. That's mainly what I'm trying to say - I don't think enough importance is given to this. If we're going to have any more duties at all, let's try to find a way to ensure that 15 years from now, no matter who the government is, the priority still will be enforcement.

Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): I'd just like to introduce myself to Phil. I'm standing in for Mike Scott tonight; he couldn't be in attendance this evening.

I'd like to go to the fisheries department again, to refer to the concern that was expressed about the minister's ability to defer to aboriginal requests for increased quotas and this type of thing. Do you read that this bill would provide that ability for the minister or not?

Mr. Kowal: This bill does not deal with any fisheries management issues whatsoever. Those measures are all entertained in the Fisheries Act.

The Chairman: Is that satisfactory to you, Phil?

Mr. Eidsvik: Yes, that pleases me and reassures me that I don't have to pay too much attention to this legislation. We can keep arguing about the components of the Fisheries Act.

.1845

The Chairman: Yes, Phil, that means we're going to have to pay attention to you because you're going to be paying attention to the next bill we expect, which deals with amendments to the Fisheries Act.

Mr. Eidsvik: Yes, I understand. We're watching cautiously and awaiting anxiously and -

The Chairman: - with baited breath. Pardon the pun.

Mr. Frazer, do you have anything more?

Mr. Frazer: No, that's all. Thank you.

The Chairman: Okay. I think we've satisfied your concerns, Phil. You're the easiest witness we've had in a number of days. It's been a pleasure to have you here.

Mr. Eidsvik: Thank you for your time.

The Chairman: Tell Paddy we say hello to him. We missed him tonight.

Mr. Eidsvik: I will pass the word on.

The Chairman: By the end of the month we're expecting to have the amendments to the Fisheries Act, and I know your association has a deep interest. When it's tabled I ask you to avail yourself of the good offices of your member of Parliament to get the act and do a very good read on it, because we're going to need your assistance on it.

Mr. Eidsvik: Yes, we will pay close attention. Thank you for your time.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Next we have John Spence from the Canadian Ocean Frontier Research Initiative.

How are you, John?

Dr. John Madden (Chairman, Canadian Ocean Frontier Research Initiative):Mr. Chairman, I am not John Spence. I'm John Madden, which is a bit of a surprise for you.

The Chairman: The first name was right.

Dr. Madden: I'm delighted that you're running ahead of schedule, but John Spence is just on his way here. He wasn't expecting to be on for another 25 minutes. However, I'm chairman of the COFRI committee. I wouldn't like to see you waste time and I'd love to get started with it, if I may.

The Chairman: It's all yours.

Dr. Madden: Thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I don't know if you people have been going without dinner all this time or whether you've had a chance to have any yet.

I am chairman of the Canadian Ocean Frontier Research Initiative. Dr. John Spence is the acting executive director, and he will be taking you through most of what we have to say.

First, we very much welcome the arrival of the Oceans Act, and most importantly we urgently look forward to the evolution of the ocean management strategy that follows from it. We have some comments that will touch on both of these aspects. In particular, as our name implies, we are interested in the research and development aspects. Our particular interest is in looking for new and innovative structures that will allow us to do a lot of the research that needs urgently to be done in the oceans, and which we are finding very difficult to afford.

I'm happy to say, Mr. Chairman, that Dr. Spence has now arrived. Without further ado, I'll introduce Dr. John Spence.

The Chairman: Thank you, John.

Welcome to the committee. I think we're running a few minutes ahead of time. Are you ready or do you need a few minutes?

Dr. John Spence (Acting Executive Director, Canadian Ocean Frontier Research Initiative): No, I'm ready. I have one question. Can we show our overheads? I did fax them to your office about an hour ago. Or should I just talk? I'm quite easy either way.

The Chairman: Why don't you just talk? I don't think we have your overheads here yet. We don't have the facilities for an overhead. We have very vivid imaginations and so we'll -

Dr. Spence: Good. Following the introduction by Dr. John Madden, I would like to recap briefly some of the history of the ocean activities coordinated by the science council that have led to the creation of the Canadian Ocean Frontier Research Initiative.

Starting about three years ago, we brought together a very diverse group of volunteers, about 400 people representing all the different ocean sectors on the west coast, and put together a strategic framework report called Ocean Opportunities for the West Coast of Canada, in which we identified many future wealth and job creation opportunities.

.1850

There are a few points arising from that report I wish to make reference to, because I think they're very relevant to what you're doing vis-à-vis the Oceans Act.

If you wish I can forward a copy of that report and the recommendations to the committee.

First, we recognized the enormous differences between the three ocean regions of Canada, the Atlantic, the Arctic, and in our case, the Pacific. We focused on the future needs in the Pacific region, and I want to mention in particular that we identified the strong need for regional coordination of research, ocean management and ocean use. Every region has its unique characteristics. It was strongly felt by all those who participated that we must have regionally sensitive mechanisms to bring together all the different players and interests.

We have been pursuing the realization of those regional mechanisms ever since. I'm happy to say that I think COFRI is one significant step in that direction, but on a more general basis we see a need for overall coordination on the west coast.

Moving on to the relevance of that report to the Oceans Act, we would like to comment that in reading the paper of the bill, so to speak, there appears to be a very heavy and very admirable emphasis on conservation.

However, there's a strong feeling on this coast that involvement of the coastal users and the coastal communities in particular will be vitally important in the achievement of conservation. We see the creation of partnerships involving these ocean users as essential to the achievement of sustainable development objectives.

Furthermore, we quite understand that in terms of the Oceans Act being enabling legislation, there was no recognition of the extreme urgency of job creation related to the ocean economy. However, we feel it's important to point out that with the decline in traditional sectors such as forestry and fisheries, we see a very high degree of urgency in knowledge-intensive job creation related to the ocean.

These points are all documented in our report. These include high value community-based fisheries, tourism, and aquaculture and more effective utilization of advanced technology, ocean mapping, coastal zone planning, etc.

We wish to underline that given where we are, there are rapidly increasing welfare rolls in many of these communities and the ocean can provide a very real focus for future sustainable job creation. This is going to be increasingly important in Canada.

Moving on to the Canadian Ocean Frontiers Research Initiative, you might ask what this foundation is that John has provided an introduction for. I'll very briefly explain what COFRI is, where it came from, what some of the priority programs are, and how this relates to Canada's Oceans Act.

First, the COFRI foundation that has now been established with its board of directors is an industry-led foundation with an ocean research and innovation mission. It is not a structure within any particular walls. It's an institute without walls that can function with many different partners within government, the universities, and industry.

It provides a common platform for partnership and cooperative research between all these different partners in ocean interests. It is a contracting body that already has a track record. I don't have time to go into the contracts we're already undertaking, including some very interesting contracts COFRI has managed to win from overseas. I would just add that we are looking at an increasingly international perspective in this new partnership mechanism.

.1855

COFRI is also very much a centre of excellence for ocean research and innovation in ocean technology.

The mission statement that was put together by the many participants in the COFRI foundation is to achieve economic benefits and environmental sustainability through interdisciplinary research into the exceptional resources of the Pacific exclusive economic zone of Canada through...and we go into detail about the creation of partnerships in research, conducting strategically important research to provide the knowledge base, and finally, the development of new technologies that will improve our ability to manage the ocean sustainably. In a nutshell, I think you can see that mission statement is very close to the long-term objectives foreseen within the ocean management strategy, and we would like to offer COFRI to you as a regional mechanism to assist Canada in achieving those goals.

The concept has evolved very rapidly from an initial preoccupation with how we can do much more cost-effective ocean research. The costs of ocean research are escalating very rapidly. We have been very much involved in looking at ways and means to reduce those costs. I'm happy to say we have very good evidence that by appropriate use of technology and cooperation with different partners Canada can achieve much more cost-effectiveness in doing whatever mission it is attempting to do in the ocean.

The foundation is being established with a distinguished board of directors, representing the presidents of all three universities out here on this coast and five or six representatives from major ocean industries. We have the Honourable John Frazer. He has agreed to sit on our board as an individual. We also have representatives from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and from the provincial government. You will see from that very diverse board we have a guiding hand in our board of directors that can oversee the future activities of the COFRI foundation.

COFRI's activities are strongly rooted in developing partnerships to achieve these various ocean missions. These partnerships can assist us in developing financial leverage for important ocean research. These partnerships can provide for cost-effective solutions in ocean management. We can bring to bear the very talented pools of scientific capability we have throughout Canada. It can also provide a forum by which we can move research ideas into the implementation stage, into commercialization, very, very rapidly; and I think this is something of definite interest in Canada at present. Finally, we would offer that these partnerships can strengthen the various efforts in science and innovation that will be needed for the ocean management strategy of Canada.

Very briefly, I'd like to refer to some of the themes we've zeroed in on within the different COFRI programs, because again, they're relevant to the future.

It became very evident that the strong preoccupation on this coast, and I think it is no different on the other coasts of Canada, is with coastal zone management. I must say we were delighted to see the reference in the Oceans Act to the establishment of marine protected areas, and indeed looking at integrated resource management of our coastal zones. I'm happy to say the primary focus that is emerging for us is very much on our coastal zones on this coast, particularly the Georgia Basin region, which is under so much pressure from population growth, pressure on fishery resources, etc.

.1900

We hope to have further information for the committee in the future about partnerships that would bring in the large industries that are in the Georgia Basin and in our coastal zone, that would bring to bear the provincial government interests, the federal government and various communities, to address these very important issues.

Secondly, we defined a marine geoscience effort, or program, that would be engaged in documenting and exploring the geological resources of our western exclusive economic zone. These, we feel, are strategically important to this country, and we are looking at ways and means of doing this research in a cost-effective manner in the future.

The third program again relates to the marine protected areas. It dealt with efforts to bring to bear a scientific capability to understand marine biodiversity and how we should conserve marine biodiversity in the future, as various uses of the ocean increase.

The next program is of obvious immediate relevance. It was bringing together a very broad team of industry and university and government people to address the appropriate use of technology in fish stock assessment. As those of you from the east coast have problems in fish stock assessment, so do we here. We believe we have an extremely interesting group that is looking at, again, ways of reducing the costs of fish stock assessment and ways of using industry to participate with scientists to reduce these costs.

The fifth program we have is one called the Ocean Public Awareness and Education Program. In this we've drawn together all those entities concerned with public education, ranging from Vancouver Aquarium to the various educational channels on television, and the expertise we have here and across the country in the use of advanced media for education. We've brought them together to advise on how to get out the ocean message to the public of this country, how to develop programs for school children and others we feel need to be educated about the importance of our oceans and ocean resources. We feel public awareness is an extremely important element of integrated resource management in the oceans. We must have the people of Canada educated about the importance of our oceans.

Drawing all these programs together, we have a technology development program that is looking at how we can bring together common technologies, common platforms, and capabilities to address all these different strands of ocean interest.

This is the program that, for example, has been able to document very significant cost savings through appropriate use of advanced technology. We believe we could reduce, to give you just one example, the costs of hydrographic survey, which are currently running, with expensive research ships, at about $80 a kilometre of ocean run. We can reduce those costs to about $5 per kilometre; and so on and so forth. So we feel it is very important for this country, in this time of deficits and of looking for costs savings, to look at what advanced technology could bring.

Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, that's an overview of what COFRI is doing. In conclusion, I would just like to say we perceive that regional partnerships are going to be very important in the future to proper administration of our oceans, and that these partners rather than centralized management through centralized bureaucracies are the true way in which we will achieve sustainability of use of the ocean in the future.

.1905

Secondly, we wish to underline this urgency attached to creating sustainable ocean-based jobs in the future. We know there may not be much scope within the Oceans Act for dealing with that. We simply wish to point out that we hope the Oceans Act will enable sustainable job creation in the future, rather than putting further impediments in the way of sustainable job creation.

Thirdly, we would like to leave you with the sense we feel here that community-based partnerships will be a very essential element in achieving sustainability.

Finally, to you and to those who will have responsibility for implementing the Oceans Act and the ocean management strategy in the future, we wish to offer COFRI to you as an example of a regional mechanism of regional volunteers who have come together to show how partnerships in marine science and technology can assist this country in fulfilling its mandates for sustainable use of the ocean and for recognition of all the new obligations we will undertake with ratification of the international Law of the Sea.

Mr. Chairman, before I leave, I'd like turn to my colleague John Madden to see if he has any further concluding remarks he would like to make.

Dr. Madden: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that we believe this model is a very appropriate and useful model, not only as a way of conducting research economically and effectively, and not only for other oceans - and there is some interest, we understand, in Atlantic Canada in putting something similar together - but also for other fields of endeavour. This is a bit of an experiment, but the enthusiasm has just been wonderful. When you see the strength of our board, I think you'll get some feeling for just how significant this effort is.

The Chairman: I want to congratulate you for what you've done. I live in Nova Scotia. I live on the coast. I'm lucky enough to have the Bedford Institute of Oceanography down on my waterfront. We have a large number of small ocean-based, private-sector resource companies operating in our area. One of the things that seem to be lacking, to me anyway, is that we do a tremendous amount of basic research and some applied research through government agencies and programs, and sometimes we just don't know how to make that linkage and do the maximum partnering necessary for the type of thing you're talking about, which is long-term sustainable jobs in ocean industries.

What has been your experience on the west coast with that, with the partnering and with the type of research that's being done? Clearly private-sector research is done in the marine area, but a significant amount of research is done by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, the Geological Survey of Canada, all of which is important but much of which has a commercial application as well. What has been your experience with that on the west coast?

Dr. Madden: I could say, first of all, that we're a very new organization, so we don't have a long history we can talk about. Indeed, we're still very much in our formative stages. We've had only one board meeting to date, and that was just a few weeks ago. We've been surprised, as John mentioned earlier, by the fact that a couple of contractors landed on our lap even before we'd established the foundation. We felt that was a very good sign.

That said, it is true that most of the research in Canada in these fields is conducted by the federal government. Federal government laboratories are under a lot of stress these days, so it's very difficult financially to get this thing going, particularly at this time. It's a bit of a struggle. But there is an awful lot of enthusiasm, and as John has already mentioned, I think we've had some progress.

However, I wouldn't want you to think at this stage we were sifting through thousands of contractual opportunities and rushing off to the bank. It's nothing like that at all. But we've been very encouraged, particularly by the support we've had from the Institute of Ocean Sciences.

.1910

Dr. Spence: I'd just like to add that we have been very concerned about the funding pressures on the Institute of Ocean Sciences, because they're clearly doing some very important long-term work that we need for our knowledge base.

I'll just make one observation here. The COFRI Foundation that is being created provides a certain comfort level for industry and other players to put their money on the table in these partnerships we talk about. I think everybody recognizes that getting these different players to, if you like, belly up to the bar and to put their money on the table is going to be very important to ensure this work gets done in the future. We've seen a very strong interest in these matching funding concepts that enable different people to come forward much more readily to provide real cash and in-kind contributions. It is a neutral forum for those who do not wish to enter into a contract with one lab or with a government agency.

Dr. Madden: This is perhaps especially true where provincial governments are concerned. As you know, while most of the research money is spent federally, there is a very strong provincial interest at play here. We know we provide a very good forum for the federal and provincial governments to cooperate together, and we've had very strong support from our provincial government.

Dr. Spence: We help to overcome, therefore, some of the political differences that might exist between different levels of government. We're a sort of neutral ground where we can avoid some of these political pitfalls.

Dr. Madden: Are there such things?

The Chairman: Before I go to Mr. Frazer, I just have one further question. It deals with science, with research and development. Going into the last budget exercise, I think I saw every minister who had an interest, who had a part of their department that did ocean research. I tried my best to convince them that if cuts had to made in the interest of some fiscal sanity, this was one area in which they were being very much penny wise and pound foolish if they did make cuts without recognizing the potential negative impact for future jobs in the marine industries. Some of the cuts still took place, however.

Because everybody talks about it, I just want to ask you something with respect to partnering. It's a great concept.

Most of the science is resident in federal government labs on both coasts and in Ottawa, with the NRC and other places. As part of the difficulty in funding this type of research, would you see that type of partnering with, say, Dartmouth's Bedford Institute of Oceanography or the National Research Councils's phytoplankton lab down in Halifax? They could enter into contractual agreements with the private sector to go out to market services or products and, in turn, get those dollars returned to the science. It wouldn't just go into the big black hole of the consolidated revenue fund. Since it appears to me that we still don't have a very strong private-sector research capability, is that the type of thing you would see as sustainable?

Dr. Madden: Indeed it is, and I'll give you an example. As I mentioned, we don't have very many examples, but John Spence said earlier that we had been successful in bringing in a contract from Japan with help, I may say, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. It was a research contract in the geoscience area.

As a result of that contract, the bulk of the funds actually went to researchers at the University of Victoria, but there was also some revenue for research at the Pacific Geoscience Centre, the federal government laboratory. This is a good example of a partnership that helped maintain jobs at PGC, as John correctly points out, while helping all of us.

The Chairman: [Inaudible - Editor]...in an area as well, isn't it?

Dr. Madden: It's very important to have the science behind the industry. Most people in industry don't have time to go into that kind of depth.

Dr. Spence: If I could just add something, Mr. Chairman, there is indeed almost a sort of tension between research and industry's perspective, where they meter their dollars and cents very carefully. They want to see a clear outcome from research, and generally it is an outcome in terms of job creation and some very specific objectives.

.1915

Very often, with some of the basic research that is ongoing at these institutes that you mentioned, it is very difficult to point to specific horizons and achievements like that. We have this very interesting tension in which industry, if it is to put its dollars on the table, wants clear evidence that there is a clear output. But the scientists are saying it is not that easy and they need to do this for a longer term. It's a very interesting dynamic, but I think it is a very healthy exercise to see that debate taking place.

Mr. Frazer: I was intrigued because many of your themes were very interesting. Specifically, it strikes me that one of the things we lack is an accurate method of fish stock assessment. I'm a layman, so you could very quickly lose me in detail here, but are you talking about a development of present technology, are you talking about a revolutionary new method, or what? Could you expand on that a little bit, please?

Dr. Spence: Yes. Just to give you one example, some of the member companies of COFRI have been pioneering the use of autonomous underwater vehicles for defence applications. These autonomous vessels can go to sea for a fraction of the price that it costs to send a whole ship to sea with a crew and everything else. We have some good evidence that you can use these platforms to mount your sonar and various other devices for doing fish stock assessment. In addition, there's very good evidence that these devices are more silent, so they don't disturb shoals of fish as much as a ship would.

To cut a long story short, we have a series of projects looking at various applications along these lines on this coast, and we are indeed very aware that they are of relevance on the east coast as well. So this is an extremely interesting field.

Finally, we recognize there is a world demand for this sort of technology. It's not only for us in Canada, but for wherever you go in the world. I've just returned from Korea, where they have a strong need for technologies that can cost-effectively tell them how many fish they have left. Everybody's facing this problem.

Mr. Frazer: Thank you very much.

Dr. Madden: Could I just use that question as a platform to mention what I think is a very interesting demonstration of the power of this concept of cooperative research? We initially started with a number of different research projects in the fisheries area. A scientific review committee looked at all of these and virtually said they are all very interesting but none of them are addressing the central problem, which is fish stock assessment. We don't know how many fish we have.

As you can imagine, amongst the scientists there was a bit of a hullabaloo. They all sat down to work around the table, and they came back a much stronger group. They were much more enthusiastic and had a number of proposals as to how to address this very urgent issue.

Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Hi, John. It's good to see both of you again. I'd prefer to see you in person, like we have in the past, rather than electronically. I'm sorry I missed part of your presentation; I was a little late. However, I heard the last part.

It's good to see you are making progress. I'm glad you are already making contacts and are getting contracts for your new organization. I'd just like to thank you for your vision of the oceans: the understanding that oceans are assets and should be treated as assets. I know you'll be supportive of this bill.

Your input here is very much welcomed by the committee. Thank you for making your presentation to the committee. I hope to see you again when I'm back on the west coast in the near future.

Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Good evening, gentlemen. I think it is a rather exciting foundation that you've got there. I come from Newfoundland, so my only regret is that you weren't around probably fifteen or twenty years ago to count the stocks off our east coast. Perhaps we would have avoided the situation we're in there today.

.1920

I think I got most of the answers there, but I was questioning in my own mind the level of research you would be doing. From what you've said, you'll probably be into almost all areas of it.

Dr. Spence: We let the demand, be it by government or by industry, set the themes for the research. What we see emerging are very clear strategic areas where one can rapidly get a consensus from all the different parties that indeed these are the priority areas and we are willing to put our hard earned money into solving these problems. I think when you go through that exercise and ask people to put their money on the table, you very rapidly come up with a true focus for the research that needs to be done.

Dr. Madden: Indeed.

If I may interject, one of the interesting things was that when we started this program, we wanted to focus very much on the Juan de Fuca Ridge, where, as I'm sure you know, there are some very interesting geothermal vents and a lot of geophysics as well as biodiversity and some interesting biological phenomena. We were told very quickly that was all very interesting but where the - I was going to say the real people, but real people is a bad word - priorities of the governments lay was very much in the Georgia Basin inshore and that if we wanted to succeed, then we'd better take a hard look at that.

In fact, as a group we have moved to where we sense the real priorities for our society are. That's not to say there aren't lots of scientists who'd love to look at some of these other problems too if we can make it happen.

Mrs. Payne: In fact, that was the basis for my question to you. We've heard so much about the things that are happening on the floor of the ocean, on the seabed, with the water temperature changing from hour to hour, almost to extremes. It seemed to me that there was a lack of technology or a lack of will to develop the technology. That was basically the reason for the question.

Dr. Madden: Thank you. We're delighted to have that question.

The difficulty we face is that some of these technologies are relatively expensive. They're not expensive in terms of the total R and D budget for the oceans, but they're expensive; you're getting up into numbers like $1 million or $2 million. This is very difficult for any single government department to face up to in these days.

What we really want to do is to get the departments to cooperate together. Defence is prepared to loan vehicles for experiments - autonomous vehicles, for example - so that this can work for all the researchers. Any help you can give us would be much appreciated.

Mrs. Payne: We'll probably have lots of work for you, but I don't know about help. Thank you.

The Chairman: In conclusion, I want to thank you for your presentation.

You have a soul mate here with me on the east coast. I have said for quite a long time that there are tremendous opportunities for the creation of sustainable employment and wealth through our ocean industries. Unfortunately, one of the things is that for far too long we've seen the oceans on the east coast only as a place where you can catch fish. We have neglected to see the whole ecosystems, the biodiversity, and the opportunities that are there.

I'm also very pleased to hear from your coast that it appears that you're supportive of this type of initiative going forward through the Parliament of Canada. I know there are similar groups on the east coast that are supportive of this legislation.

Dr. Madden: Very much so.

Thank you very much for taking the time to hear us.

The Chairman: Thank you for taking the time to come and chat with us tonight.

.1925

Our next witness is Gerald Hamilton, from the Pacific Institute of Deep Sea Technology.

We're very anxious to hear what you can add to our deliberations on the Canada Oceans Act. The floor is yours, sir.

Mr. Gerald Hamilton (Chairman, Pacific Institute of Deep Sea Technology): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I ask whether my fax covering the presentation reached you? Was it translated into French, as required?

The Chairman: I don't think it was translated into French. I don't know. I have it in English only, but we will have it translated. We'll be all set. If it isn't translated yet, it will be translated, so we'll be fine.

Mr. Hamilton: I was concerned because you were concerned, and we're very anxious to do everything the proper way.

The Chairman: It's all yours. We're all ready.

Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, first let me thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the subject of Bill C-98 on behalf of our group of 27 directors, who cover the whole gamut - politics, universities, and industry - on the west coast. I believe we gave you a copy of the list of these directors. They are such diverse people as a former governor general of our fine country; Senator Jack Austin, whom you may know; an ex-chancellor of the University of B.C.; an ex-commissioner for Expo and port chairman; major industrialists from the ocean sectors; and major people from the three universities from this area.

You might ask why they all came together and why they chose the particular name of ``Pacific Institute of Deep Sea Technology''. It was the name we chose to start with, but I think we will shortly call ourselves the ``Canadian Pacific Ocean Institute'', or something very similar to that.

It's important that you understand the calibre of the people. Dr. Spence you've just listened to. He's also a director of that body, as are many of those you can see on the list.

.1930

We came together four and a half years ago when it became obvious that the ocean sciences were unable to coordinate themselves, with the result that Canada has fallen behind other nations in the pursuit of its legitimate goals, something that we have high hopes of Bill C-98 remedying.

I think it's fair to say that if the situation four and a half years ago showed that the various segments of the ocean industries - namely, transportation, bottom sensing, oceans and fisheries, energy and mines, defence, coast guard, you name it - were unable to coordinate themselves, then these days they are in terrible shape. This is basically why I'm here, to try to offer the help of our group.

Let me start on a sour note, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Seeing you are so amiable, that seems a rotten thing to do, but I will.

With regard to the composition of your committee, 6 out of 11 members come from Atlantic Canada, 8 out of 11 come from eastern Canada, and only 2 members represent B.C. and the Pacific Ocean region. So I ask you: have we not learned from the referendum last Monday that the hope for Canada lies in devolution, and do we not have two oceans, not just the Atlantic, equally deserving of attention?

The very bones of our discontent lie in the fact that the potential for job creation and prosperity is intertwined with the need to create a coordinating mechanism that will dedicate its attention 24 hours a day towards progress and the furtherance of ocean development and environmental management. This is basically the theme of the reason I'm sitting here addressing you on behalf of these various very important people. Several Orders of Canada are included, and everyone is very knowledgeable.

I want your committee to understand, if you will, Mr. Chairman, that we have a crisis here - ``here'' being on the west coast. All government departments are in tatters and unable or unmotivated to put forward a cohesive program that will launch new initiatives in the ocean sector. Therefore, we are convinced that such a game plan must come from the private sector, such as ours, who will seek the majority of funding from Asian colleagues, who may still have some funds available, we're told, and have respect for Canadian technology and organizational know-how.

What we're saying is this: if there is no money in these different departments - Fisheries and Oceans, Energy and Mines, Defence, the Canadian Coast Guard and all the others - we have two choices: one is just to sit and wait for times to get better, and the other is, possibly, through the private sector, and not through these poor people who don't know whether they're going to have a job next week, to come forward with some way of funding what needs to be done on the Pacific coast in the furtherance of the Oceans Act that you're now proposing.

Dr. John MacDonald, one of our eminent directors - and I don't know whether you know him, he's probably almost the number one industrialist in this particular field - will be putting together such a game plan within the next two weeks - give him three weeks - and we expect our group to send it forward to your committee at the House of Commons. It will further amplify the report produced by the B.C. Science Council. Here's another one: put the Ferencz-Weicker study here. It was was commissioned by the Department of Western Economic Diversification, which is also out of money. Then there is another one, which was done by Mrs. Kenney-Wallace. That is on behalf of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. These are all saying that we simply must have an oceans commission out here to coordinate it.

.1935

There you have three reports, Mr. Chairman, all of which said this thing. You will probably also hear from the Province of B.C., which will say that there has been an intergovernmental report made through the investment ministry that says roughly the same the thing again.

My question to you, Mr. Chairman, is: how many reports and studies do we need, all saying that we need coordination as such a commission? Now we find that Bill C-98 says exactly the same thing, but it is short on suggestions for implementation. That is not meant to be a criticism. I thinkMr. Tobin's bill is very far-sighted, and we applaud it very much indeed.

This is our offer. Our group, together with other qualified people chosen by you, us, or whomever is going to get involved, can assist you in taking the next step forward.

You may wish us to tie in with the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, which might benefit by such a move. This particular group is federally controlled, and I think that might be a very natural move.

Dr. MacDonald favours a close association with the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sydney, B.C., which is underutilized and where you have tax dollars invested already.

These are suggestions that might be followed up.

We ask you, Mr. Chairman, to show western Canada that we deserve major policy support in this field. That's what we ask of you. The Pacific ocean is where our future prosperity may lie for the entire country. That is why we think there will be funding available from different countries around the Pacific rim from the private sector that need to be explored. But they need to be explored officially though cooperation between a private-sector group such as ours and government enthusiasm.

We say that if the private sector's willing to show leadership, Mr. Chairman, why shouldn't our central government show us enthusiasm and vigorous action?

That is basically the main item. I'll come back in a minute.

Incidentally, Dr. Jim McFarlane, O.C., has asked me to point out to you that the Oceans Act seems to make no reference to article 76 of the Law of the Sea conference, which defines our national boundaries. He wonders if that is an oversight. I wanted to please him in having that included.

In summation, Mr. Chairman, we need not the ``ad hocery'' of the odd program here or there; we need you to assist us, through the Oceans Act, in recognizing the fact of the regional problems of the Atlantic oceans, which we've read about so much and which I've had the honour to speak toMr. Tobin about, and the problems we have here in the Pacific.

Both have to be addressed somewhat separately. You might see fit to find an organization you might learn to trust that could give 24 hours a day to the subject of the coordination and priorization of programs and where money should be spent and where it should not be spent in the interests of the whole country. We have an example in the Vancouver International Airport Authority, which has that kind of right given to it.

.1940

We therefore ask you to assist in getting a west coast commission that would do this job, and I think you will find that the private sector will come and give you the assistance that is needed in any shape that is in the best interest of our country. I'll be glad to answer any questions.

The Chairman: Mr. Hamilton, even though this is a very big country and has three oceans, the types of initiatives that your organization is undertaking, and the types of suggestions that you have for the Pacific Ocean area, are also being recommended for the east coast of Canada.

Today we had a Mr. Frank Smith, from the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association, who supported the bill. He was a bit critical that it didn't go far enough, but talked about the requirement for perhaps a marine agency. I don't think the two ideas are terribly different, although they may be called something different. He represented industry groups on the east coast of Canada. He saw a tremendous potential but also saw a requirement for this to be very highly coordinated and policy-driven.

I think what you're saying is almost identical on the west coast. It's amazing in a country as broad as this that we have two very prestigious organizations that are basically saying, yes, we support it, but don't let it stop there; take it a step further.

You have willing organizations with highly qualified and well-respected individuals who are offering their services to go into a partnership to make this thing work and to maximize in a sustainable fashion the ocean resources on our coasts. So we might get you gentlemen to exchange your cards on east and west coast there and we might find that the pressure from both coasts will make Ottawa work.

Mr. Hamilton: And how would you like to add a few B.C. members to your committee, sir, so that we'd feel -

The Chairman: We always welcome B.C. members on the committee, and as one of them just said to me, when you deal with west coast members it's quality not quantity that counts.

Mr. Hamilton: Tell your member that he's very persuasive in his argument, but you know what I mean, there's nothing like a squeaky wheel.

The Chairman: I understand that. One of the problems we have is that the composition of the committee is reflective of the composition of the parties in the House. I wish that we had elected more Liberal members from the west coast because they'd have more opportunities to sit over in those five chairs.

Suffice it to say, quite honestly, that the B.C. members of the committee, both the parliamentary secretary and other members - Mr. Frazer, Mr. Cummins, Mr. Scott, Mr. White - have been very active on this committee in making sure that the west coast views are put on a daily basis when this committee meets. Your point is well-taken.

Mr. Hamilton: But how are we going to get this commission organized? What can you do? You say that the hon. member from the Atlantic provinces has asked for something like that. Are you prepared to give such bodies possibly some degree of local authority, as our airport authority was given?

The Chairman: I don't know. I can't do that. I'm not the minister. What I do know is that the minister has been extremely proactive in searching out partners for co-management and delegating authority to the point at which it's reasonable and where it makes sense to those types of bodies.

It's certainly the type of recommendation that I think we can make, to say that there appears to be two highly organized - there may be others - organizations on both coasts who have offered their services to flesh out in real terms some of the objectives of this particular bill and to do so in a very quick fashion. I think it's something that we might want to consider as part of our report on this bill.

.1945

Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend Mr. Hamilton on his presentation, and I very much support the concept of industrial and government cooperation.

It may be that industry, having to be relatively efficient in its operation, might impact somewhat on government and government might learn something from that. I think it's an excellent concept. Thank you.

Mr. Hamilton: Thank you.

The Chairman: I have a question for you, if I could, before I go over to Mr. Dhaliwal. When we talk about integrated management plans for coastal zones, how would you see your role in ensuring that as those management plans come together the breadth of interest out there, some of which is environmental, some of which is industry, certainly fisheries...? Would it be simply to coordinate the development of those plans through those groups and then you would report back to government with the plan? Is that how you would see your group operating?

Mr. Hamilton: We would be glad to do that. We don't want anybody to be left out of it. The ocean sciences are not just fisheries and stuff like that. There's so much more at stake. We would like to present you, and in fact we will present you, with a game plan that Dr. MacDonald is putting together.

We will pass it through our organization. We would like to help coordinate. We would like to bring new people in. We would like to coordinate with Mr. Dhaliwal, particularly, since he was prominent in the preparation of this Oceans Act.

We would like to do whatever is necessary. The role we would like to play is to be facilitators, as the other gentlemen said, and give you some action. We need to be trusted and to be put in an official position. That's why I said that the Asia Pacific Foundation might be where we should come from if that is your wish.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Hi, Gerald. It's good to talk to you again. I want to congratulate you, too, for your presentation to the committee and your ongoing work in the ocean industries area.

I'd also like to congratulate you for putting together such an excellent group of people, people such as John MacDonald and others on your board. It's quite a remarkable feat to get someone like that. I presume you were referring to John MacDonald from MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates Ltd., who's very well-known -

Mr. Hamilton: Of course.

Mr. Dhaliwal: - throughout British Columbia and probably throughout the country for his work in high-tech.

I've had the opportunity to visit their facility when the Minister of Industry was here on their 25th anniversary.

You also mentioned the IOS, the Institute of Ocean Sciences, which I recently - just four weeks ago - toured. Unfortunately, I didn't have enough time to tour the whole facility. One of your comments was that it was under-utilized. Since it's quite fresh in my mind because of my recent tour, I want to ask you how you think we can make better use of our facilities, services, and manpower at the IOS.

Mr. Hamilton: When a minister visits a facility, you're shown what they want to show you, I suppose to a large degree. As an outsider I can say that in the nicest possible way.

I'm relying on Dr. MacDonald, who said it is under-utilized. We have some excellent brains that we would like to hang on to if we possibly can. Our game plan is going to go into that subject very deeply. I'm relying on Dr. MacDonald to put it together. I'll make sure that at the same time as your chairman in this committee gets our report we have a little session together. I welcome your comments.

.1950

Definitely, that facility is already there. Some boats are just sitting there not used, and he went into it in some detail. Let us give you the facts and figures, if you don't mind.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Thank you for keeping me well informed of your activities and some of your concerns. Keep up the good work. I'm glad to hear that you have more representation on this committee and you'll work harder to make sure we have more Liberals from the west so we can have more members on this committee. Thank you very much for putting in a presentation.

Mr. Hamilton: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you for your briefing. I'm looking forward to getting the game plan when it will be ready. I don't know how much longer we're going to have this bill. It'll probably be a couple of weeks, so I would very much appreciate it if you could get that to us. There are members of the department here, as well as the minister's staff, who've taken some notes. You've made a very good offer. We're going to make sure that it will be passed on and hopefully it will be acted upon. It's exactly the type of private-sector partnering and partnering from outside with government from groups, agencies, and foundations that will make government work a little bit better.

Mrs. Payne from Newfoundland is going to make sure that you and Mr. Smith from the Newfoundland association will get together so you can compare some notes.

Mr. Hamilton: Excellent.

If I can have the last word, briefly, I just want to say that this conference is wonderful. We were just about to lose heart. I was just about to lose all these good people because we were wandering in the corridors of power of two different segments of government, getting nowhere. It really is up to you to put us in a position to do our work. We're willing to do that work, but we need to be put in place. Maybe the Asia Pacific Foundation should be instructed to make room for us.

Thank you for seeing me.

The Chairman: That is a very good recommendation. Thanks very much.

Now, from the West Coast Environmental Law Association, we have Linda Nowlan, staff lawyer.

Welcome to the committee. Before you give your brief, maybe you can tell us a little bit about what the West Coast Environmental Law Association is, just so we'll have a better feel for what it represents and its membership.

Ms Linda Nowlan (Staff Lawyer, West Coast Environmental Law Association): Thanks for inviting me to speak today.

The West Coast Environmental Law Association is a non-profit, public-interest environmental law group that has been operating in Vancouver since 1974. We do work in five different areas of environmental law. We have a library. We do some representation of clients. We do public legal education about environmental law.

Most importantly, I think, we do law reform, which is why I'm here today. We try to make sure that we have the opportunity to participate in the development of new laws at every level that will go towards protecting our environment in the best way we know. That's why I'm here today.

Of course, being from Vancouver, as the previous witness told you, we have a quite big interest in ensuring that the oceans out here are protected in the best way they can be. You've been hearing from some of the private sector, and I'd like to provide you with some perspective from the non-governmental organization sector that I represent.

Environmental groups in B.C. are somewhat concerned by the speed with which this bill is progressing and by what they see as a lack of ability to participate in the hearings. A lot of people didn't know about it. I was fortunate in that I was contacted and was able to come today. But I do want to let you know it was scheduled very quickly and I think more would be here today if there had been the opportunity.

.1955

The theme of my comments on improving the Oceans Act will be devoted to translating the vision that Minister Tobin stated in his vision statement into law. I think the vision statement was quite remarkable in focusing on stewardship of the oceans. Minister Tobin did talk about turning away from ad hoc and short-term measures, which have resulted in resource over-exploitation and environmental degradation. He said we must translate responsibility and good intentions into a policy that will result in sustainable use of resources and environmental protection. In our submission, the Oceans Act as currently drafted needs some adjustments if it is to match this vision.

We do have some serious environmental concerns out here on the Pacific coast. A recent scientific study by the B.C.-Washington Marine Science Panel, which is a group established by the B.C.-Washington Marine Environmental Co-operation Council, did a report on our shared waters in 1994. This report lists some of the key environmental threats faced in this region. Primary among those is loss of biodiversity. The panel rated destruction, alteration, or degradation of habitat as the highest environmental priority for the region, because the impacts are irreversible. The potential harm to the environment is great and habitat losses are highly preventable.

I know the federal government concentrates more on the water than on the coastal habitat, which is provincial jurisdiction, but I know your bill is intended to improve the coordination among different levels of government. I urge you strongly to consider the problem of biodiversity as one of the primary problems the bill is supposed to deal with. It can be improved so you can better address this problem.

Some of the other problems we face in this region relate to the rapid growth. We have quite astonishing projections of population growth, with all the development pressure that entails. Most of B.C.'s population lives on or near the coast. About 70% of B.C.'s population lives either beside or very near the Strait of Georgia. Our marine waters are under tremendous pressure from all these people and all this development.

There are many potential sources of pollution, and there's also a legacy of past industrial contamination. One of the things the vision statement stated was that one of the objects of the bill would be to restore the marine environment. I would also urge that there be some mention in the bill of restoring the environment. It does talk about developing the ocean management strategy, but there isn't much in the way of restoring the environment, which in many areas does need restoration.

Some of the comments I'll make on the specific language of the bill I imagine you've heard from other environmental groups or non-governmental organizations across Canada.

The first relates to the lack of a purpose clause and lack of guiding principles. It's a very important part of a bill to include a purpose clause...with guiding principles to provide a sense of vision for stewardship of the oceans into the next century. I've suggested a possible wording of a purpose clause and some guiding principles.

The principles could include the precautionary principle, a very important scientific principle: where there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental harm, action should be taken to prevent contamination before there's conclusive proof of harm. Other policies include pollution prevention, which is a cornerstone, or will soon be, I'm sure, more of a cornerstone of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; as I mentioned, the preservation of and prevention of loss of biological diversity; sustainable use of biological marine, estuarine, and coastal resources, because biodiversity includes traditional protection measures such as setting aside protected areas and concentrating on conservation of what's out there, but we also have to think about what is said in the Convention on Biological Diversity, that we have to use our biological resources sustainably. That's an important part of the principle that could be in there.

.2000

Public participation could be enshrined as a guiding principle in the act. I know the bill is predicated on involving a wide range of stakeholders and interested groups. I think you could put it right up front that public participation is an important guiding principle.

Also, intergenerational equity is a principle developed under Agenda 21 at the Rio Conference, which says we should be recognizing the rights of future generations when we talk about environmental protection and sustainable development.

My main concern with the bill is with part II of the oceans management strategy. I think this part of the bill is laudable and the government is to be commended for going ahead with the development of this strategy. But as it's currently set out in the bill, it's weaker than it could be. I think there should be some goals and time lines and schedules attached.

Particularly, I would recommend including a reporting function back to the public. The public and environmental groups were very concerned about the cuts to the State of the Environment reporting from Environment Canada. Once the 1996 State of the Environment Report is released, we will no longer have any federal reporting on the state of the environment, as was the case before.

I think an important part of the Oceans Act could be a provision to provide a State of the Oceans Report based on progress in achieving the oceans management strategy. I think this type of reporting function would be best included right in the bill. Maybe the interval could be set at every two years, if annually is too much of a burden on those preparing the reports.

More detail on what this strategy includes would also be helpful. I think the important concepts of monitoring and reporting on the quality of the ocean's environment must be part of the strategy and should be put in the bill. The obligation to collect and monitor data is fundamental in seeing how we're doing in preserving our ocean environment. I also have some suggested wording in that regard.

Clause 32 of the bill, which talks about implementation, is discretionary. It says ``may'', and I would recommend that it be ``shall''; it should be mandatory instead. I think the minister should be obligated to do the things set out in clause 32. Again, it would fulfil a promise of the minister, who said in the vision statement that the quality of the oceans environment would be measured against guidelines, objectives, or standards set to maintain habitat quality and resource abundance, quality, or diversity. I think translating the vision into law requires some amendment to this clause.

There should be specific subclauses in clause 32 stating what types of data would be monitored and how progress would be measured in implementation of the report. I think some of the changes could be to repeat some of the language in the section on scientific research, which talks about collection of data, and move it up here so that the minister shall ``collect data for the purpose of understanding oceans and their living resources and ecosystems, including the components of marine biodiversity'', and including as well the processes and categories of activities that are likely to have a significant effect on estuarine, coastal, and marine ecosystem health.

Once these data have been collected, I think there should be an obligation in the bill to monitor the data. Don't just collect the data and put them aside, but monitor them and report back to the public about what you found out.

Considering that we have signed the Convention on Biological Diversity and are actively developing our strategy to deal with biodiversity, a further obligation contained in that convention is to take action. Once you've done your data collection and monitoring, there's a further very important duty to take action to regulate those processes or activities that are shown to have a negative effect on the marine environment. That's right there in article 8(l) of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

I think we could improve the Oceans Act by imposing a similar obligation on government to take action once the data that have been collected pursuant to the act show that there has been a significant adverse effect on the marine environment.

I'm sure you've heard a lot about the subject of marine protected areas. It's great that this is there in the law. I think the government is to be commended for including it.

.2005

Just to give you some numbers, in B.C. we have less than 0.1% of coastal and marine areas that are protected. Also, in even our strictest form of ecological reserve out here, commercial fishing is still permitted. There's only one completely non-consumptive marine protected area in B.C., which has been created through the efforts of an NGO out here that's working quite hard to set up more of these. I hope that's the type of group that can be participating in the ocean management strategy you're talking about. That is the Marine Life Sanctuaries Society, which might be talking to you or submitting a brief on the bill in another forum.

As with other protected areas in parks laws, the obligation to report on the progress made in establishing the types of marine protected areas should be included right in the bill, similarly to how it is done in the National Parks Act.

There should be time lines for preparing management plans for these areas, which should be included in the bill. The management plans should be presented to Parliament, again in a way similar to that provided for in other parks acts. Hence, there should be entrenched public participation in the preparation of management plans for these areas and in designating and deciding on where the areas should be.

My final point about improving the environmental protection part of the Oceans Act and giving more teeth to the vision that was set out by Minister Tobin in the vision statement relates to the environmental quality guidelines, which are currently in paragraph 32(d) of the bill. We recommend, instead of guidelines, that the bill should put this part in the regulation-making provision. Our reasons for making this recommendation are as follows.

The value of setting environmental guidelines remains open. Guidelines aren't enforceable in a court, as are regulations. Voluntary approaches to environmental protection have received quite strong favour by all levels of government lately. That concerns groups such as ours that work in the area of environmental law, because we know that regulations are enforceable but guidelines aren't. When it comes down to strict allocation of scarce government resources, you are going to go out and enforce what you have to enforce by law, not necessarily what's contained in a guideline. Also, we know that research has shown that industries pay more attention to regulations than they do to guidelines. Voluntary approaches just don't get as much attention from corporations as regulations do.

I can quote you a 1994 study prepared by Peat Marwick, KPMG, which showed that 95% of the environmental managers who took part in the survey identified compliance to regulations as a motivating factor for taking action, compared with 16% who identified voluntary government programs as a motivating factor and a reason for them to change their behaviour.

There are real benefits from establishing regulations, and we see that every day in our work when people phone us and ask us what they can do. If there's a regulation or a law in place, it's a lot easier to give them some help than if there's just a voluntary code of conduct or a guideline.

We recommend that the regulation-making power under clause 35 be added to as follows: giving the minister the authority to prescribe standards for the protection and management of the marine environment, so that this will be done by regulation rather than by guidelines.

That's it for my comments on translating the vision into law. I shall be happy to answer any questions I can.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. It's very helpful when somebody gives us a presentation and can specifically refer to clauses of the bill, speak to them, and give us some idea of amendments that will strengthen or clarify the act. We appreciate it.

I understand that your organization has done a considerable amount of work vis-à-vis ocean dumping. When we started this whole thing, I think most people agreed that this bill is motherhood. It's all about things that most people who are concerned about our marine environment or oceans would like to see. This is what is positive.

My concern is that we do not often get an opportunity to revisit legislation. It's just the nature of what we do here. When legislation goes forward, unless there is some requirement in it for it to be reviewed at some future time, many of the lofty goals of the legislation may not in actual fact be achievable after the regulators and the regulation writers get through with it. I know legislation often doesn't come back. The bill is done and the piece of legislation is passed with its warts, wrinkles, and lofty principles, and it usually stays like that for a long time.

.2010

One of the things we are concerned about is the pieces of legislation that have not been consolidated into the Canada Oceans Act. One of the primary goals of this bill was to consolidate, where it made sense, existing pieces of legislation or programs and make sure there was not just a coordinating requirement by the minister but in some areas a direct ministerial responsibility. When we deal with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act part VI, which deals with ocean disposal, I would have thought it would have been natural to have been transferred over when this consolidation was done, when program review was done, from the Minister of the Environment to the minister who is responsible, the Minister of Fisheries, for the administration of the Canada Oceans Act.

There is one other one. It deals with the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which comes under the responsibility of the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, and specifically the regulations controlling the deposit of waste in the high Arctic.

It seems to me if you get maybe one chance in a lifetime to put a bill together, if there are some obvious omissions in that bill, we should push very hard to have them included, so we have a stronger piece of legislation after it passes through all stages in Parliament. I want you to comment on that for me, whether or not you think we should call in the Minister of the Environment, sit her across the table here with her officials, and ask her what reasons are so compelling that these particular pieces of legislation or parts of legislation should stay with her department. Why should they not be transferred over under the new COA?

Ms Nowlan: I would think you could tell me the answer to that question better than I can. I would assume the Minister of the Environment would have given reasons why Ocean Dumping and Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention weren't included. I certainly have heard they were going to be included at one point. When I read the bill I saw they weren't. I assumed this was just one of those government mysteries that committees like yours could explain to members of the public such as us. It does make sense.

The Chairman: This is almost like Murder, She Wrote. You start it up and you're not exactly sure who the culprit is until the end of the play.

We haven't had the minister in yet, but.... I'm not that smart, but it seems to me these are important components that should be in the new oceans bill. Do you think they should, or, with your experience in environmental law, is there some compelling reason why they shouldn't be?

Ms Nowlan: If the idea is to consolidate all ocean-related activities into one act, they certainly should be.

I'm reluctant to relinquish the role of the Minister of the Environment completely. I understand the need for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to be taking a lead here. I hope that doesn't mean Environment Canada will be excluded, because they've played a pretty central role in environmental protection, even more, perhaps, than Fisheries, traditionally, although I know the two work closely together. But I see no reason legally or policy-wise why this shouldn't be part of the oceans bill, again with the reservation that this would continue to mean Environment officials were included in ocean dumping or arctic waters pollution decisions, because I do see a strong role for them.

Some parts of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act give special rights to the public, and they aren't in your oceans bill. Any two members of the public can request an investigation for an alleged violation of CEPA. Taking the ocean dumping part out of CEPA would remove access to that provision. There are various appeal provisions that I'd like to look more at before saying without reservation ocean dumping should go to the Canada Oceans Act. Some procedural protections in relation to ocean dumping are in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I'm not as familiar with the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.

It does make sense to me, especially when you're talking about development of an oceans management strategy, that one of the things you'd like to look at if you're talking about the environmental health of the oceans is the whole question of ocean disposal or ocean dumping. Again, I know of problems out here. I do get calls from fishers and other people out there on the water who see dumping going on and want to know what they can do about it.

.2015

I hope that answers your question.

The Chairman: It does because it's one of those mysteries we will have to try to unravel by next week.

Some other witnesses have talked about a problem they see with the bill in clause 28, which deals with ocean management strategy and says:

For greater certainty, this Part does not apply in respect of rivers and lakes.

I think that's there for the sake of clarity so we don't get into any constitutional wrangles over whose responsibility it is.

In some instances, with respect to rivers and lakes management, clear-cutting on the banks of rivers is leading to silting up, which can result in many things. There is also development and all of those issues that may not be constitutionally the responsibility of the federal government or any federal department, but will clearly have an impact on the health of the biodiversity of a marine environment.

Should there be something in here that, while it recognizes it's someone else's jurisdiction, would require the minister to put in the bill - although this bill does not apply to rivers and lakes - that the minister shall consult with the respective provincial and territorial governments in the development of management plans? Should something like that be in there just for clarity?

Ms Nowlan: Sure. I think that's a great idea. I did notice that and I thought it was just to stall those constitutional challenges. You can't separate parts of an ecosystem. You can't separate the Fraser River from the Pacific Ocean. Obviously, what goes on in all our big and small rivers and streams has a big effect on what enters the oceans.

We do have examples of institutions that have been created to look at parts of the ecosystem that cross boundaries, such as the Fraser Basin Management Program. It looks at provincial, federal, and municipal governments that each have a role in the Fraser River.

I think the suggestion you're making about a provision to consult with other levels of government about what goes on in rivers would be a good idea. This is the type of provision, I think, that can be quite confusing to members of the public. They don't understand why something like that is there. It does seem to be quite an artificial distinction to make when you're talking about ocean health - to treat the ocean as a self-contained entity, when of course it isn't.

The Chairman: Speaking of the Fraser, we're going over to Mr. Frazer, all the way from the west coast of Canada. I think he has some questions.

Mr. Frazer: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I come from off the west coast of Canada. My home is on Saltspring Island in the Gulf Islands.

Following what you were saying about the influence of rivers and streams on the ocean, you struck a cord with me, Ms Nowlan, when you mentioned public participation and the lack of reporting requirements in the bill.

You mentioned that clause 32 is not demanding enough. I found that clause 33 also gives the minister a lot of ``mays'' and not ``shalls'', particularly when it comes to the requirement to consult with interested agencies.

Did you omit that for some reason, or was that a continuation?

Ms Nowlan: It was not omitted for any reason. I think most of the discretionary language in the whole part II of the bill should be replaced by mandatory language, so any time you see the word ``may'' it would be ``shall''. I totally agree with you. Public participation should be a must, not a maybe.

Mr. Frazer: If I may, I'd like to proceed with that. You mentioned marine protected areas in your earlier discourse. We in the Reform Party are certainly not against these things at all, but we think there should be consultation with the agencies affected to ensure that everybody knows what we're doing and that we're affecting the correct establishment of such areas. Would you agree with that as well?

Ms Nowlan: Yes, consultation is highly desirable.

.2020

Just to repeat, the ocean covers the majority of the global. The global figures on how much we protected this part of our ecosystem are shockingly low. There's a real need to set aside some parts of the ocean against any uses whereby we just consume and take. But the relevant agencies, public organizations, and resource users should all be consulted before that takes place.

I do know the federal and provincial governments are starting on a marine-protected-areas joint strategy out here. I've heard of it. I haven't seen it in action yet, but I know it's coming.

Mr. Frazer: You and I are certainly in agreement on that one. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: I want to thank you for your presentation. I know you have a lot of other things to do with your life, but I wonder if you could maybe give a little more reflection on some of the things that deal with language, because it's important. If you could possibly scribble that down, as well as the report you were quoting from, and maybe get it faxed over to our clerk, I think it would be a great help to us when we sit down to do a clause by clause to come up with some reporting on this bill. Could you help us out with that?

Ms Nowlan: I would be happy to. It should have reached you before today, but I was a little pressed. It's probably in your office now, but I think I'll take a look at it again, based on some of the comments that I've heard from the committee members. I will send it to you very soon.

The Chairman: I appreciate your taking the time and your interest in the legislation. Thank you very much.

Catherine Stewart, it's good to see you. I haven't seen you since the Law of the Sea in New York a few months ago.

Ms Catherine Stewart (Fisheries Campaigner, Greenpeace): It was New York, yes. It's nice to see you again, too.

The Chairman: It was a successful conclusion. The NGO community worked very hard. It's too bad that a lot of other issues that face us internationally don't come to such a successful conclusion.

It's good to see you. We're here to talk about Bill C-98. I'm sure you've got plenty of comments for us. The floor is yours.

Ms Stewart: Thank you, Ron. I'm going to try to go through my submission in a rather disjointed way. I'm sure that many of the comments I have to make will have been heard before by you, not only from Linda, but from your east coast witnesses as well.

I would like to start by thanking all of you to allow me to appear. I'll start with one brief comment on part I, regarding maritime zones, and a clarification of the issue of continental shelf jurisdiction.

It appeared from my reading of clauses 17, 18, and 19 that the definitions included in those clauses would allow for an effective unilateral extension of jurisdiction in areas on the shelf outside 200 nautical miles. I'm not clear from the reading of the bill if that's the government's intention. To a degree, of course, it is permissible under UNCLOS, under article 76. One of the earlier witnesses today did mention references to article 76.

My understanding there is that jurisdiction doesn't apply to fisheries resources, however. Again, I'd like a clarification from this committee as to whether you've reviewed this or whether you could possibly give answers about what the government's intentions are regarding jurisdiction over fisheries resources in the event of an extension of jurisdiction.

In light of the various tensions, gunfire, confrontations, etc., that have taken place, and in light of the fact that the treaty we were just referring to, which is from the United Nations Conference on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, has not yet been ratified, I think it would be a very dangerous signal to send internationally that Canada is contemplating any kind of extension of jurisdiction unless it's very clear what resources are covered and in what capacity.

Frankly, it could even put at risk the ratification of the UN treaty on fisheries, which, considering Minister Tobin's hard work and that of many people in the Canadian government to bring that treaty to fruition, would be a real shame.

.2025

The Chairman: I would like to respond to that, Catherine.

When the department came over to give us their briefing on the bill, that was a question that was raised by Mr. Baker - surprise, surprise - who's from the east coast. It is clearly not the government's intention to extend its jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile limit for the fish resource in the water column.

Ms Stewart: So we're talking about non-living -

The Chairman: That's right. One thing was clear. I made the point, and I think it was agreed to by the department, that the convention from the UN Conference on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks seems to give particular weight and primacy to the coastal states. It gives weight to the other states in the regional organization in the east coast situation of NAFO to take conservation measures that were consistent with those taken by the coastal states within their waters of jurisdiction.

So, in effect, as for the ability under this bill for the minister to designate protected marine areas, if the minister chose to do that in a spawning area - say it's right on the 200-mile limit - it would be compelling under the Conference on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks for the members of the regional agency to not take measures that were inconsistent with that.

I don't think there's any intention to extend the jurisdiction, but I think this gives the government some tools to make a convincing argument in the regional organization for conservation outside the 200-mile limit.

Ms Stewart: That's reassuring. Thank you.

Further to the issue of the United Nations treaty on migratory and straddling stocks, I thinkMr. Tobin made it very clear in his final address to the UN plenary session that the negotiation of this treaty was a great day for Canada and the assembled United Nations.

I think that enthusiasm and the work that's been done to push the treaty forward leaves Canada, in fact, with a moral obligation to try to incorporate some of the principles negotiated in New York into domestic legislation.

Unfortunately, from my reading of Bill C-98, I don't feel that those principles are entrenched to the degree that I think we are morally, if not yet legally, obliged to put them in place.

It's a concern to Greenpeace, and to a number of NGOs, that the bill doesn't make a single mention of biodiversity. There's no reference to the precautionary approach as a management strategy for ocean ecosystems. There's no mention of the rights or interests of coastal communities or of our seasonal fishermen. The bill makes no mention of minimizing waste in fisheries, reducing ``by-catch'', or promoting the development of selective fishing gear.

All of those principles are clearly outlined in the UN treaty, which Canada has declared its intention to ratify.

Let's jump from there to clause 28 and this issue of management. I'm not a lawyer or an expert on wording, but it does concern me as well, particularly in relation to an anadromous species.

I wonder if there is not some way in which clause 28 could be worded to include a responsibility of an interest on the part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for rivers and lakes that support anadromous species, for example, or rivers and lakes that have a significant outflow into coastal areas that can affect the health of the estuarine ecosystem.

We've touched on principles. I'd just also like to add that, in stating the principles that will guide the implementation of the act, I would again refer back to the UN treaty and ask for the principle of transparency to be included as well.

Bear with me, as I didn't have a chance to compare notes before we arrived. There's a fair degree of repetition. At least some common interests are clearly evident.

.2030

Again, we are concerned as well about the preponderance of the word ``may'' throughout the clause and would strongly encourage the replacement of that word with the word ``shall''.

In subparagraph 32(c)(i) there's reference to the establishment of advisory or management bodies whose members may be appointed or designated by the minister or agencies of the government. Integrated coastal management is going to depend on the involvement and cooperation of the general public and resource users in coastal zones and coastal communities.

The act should not entrench a fundamentally undemocratic principle such as appointment by the minister and the hand selection of memberships to advisory groups and bodies. It must embrace the full participation of residents of coastal communities in order for integrated management to be effective.

Paragraph 32(d) states that the minister may establish marine environmental quality guidelines, objectives, and criteria. This has to be an obligation on the part of the minister, not an option.

It is disappointing that this is the only substantive reference to marine ecosystem health in the bill and that it's framed as an option. This clause must contain firm goals for the restoration of marine ecosystem health, must outline methods to ensure public accountability, and must define a framework for action.

Pardon the repetition, but these are really critical issues, so I will stress them by making some of the same observations the previous witnesses made.

Paragraph 33(1)(b) states that the minister may enter into agreements with any person or body. We heard a clarification on that from you earlier, when Mr. Eidsvik testified, but we would again like to stress our concern that this not mean privatization of management of fisheries resources and that there be full consultation around changes to the Fisheries Act if this is meant to be enabling legislation for those types of changes.

Clause 35 is giving us concern as well. While it's encouraging to see reference made to the possible creation of marine protected areas, we are distressed that that's the only mention in the act of the conservation and protection of fishery resources and their habitat. It's limited to actions that may be taken in marine protected areas, if you look at the second part of that clause.

Thus, if the Governor in Council does not create marine protected areas, no action need be taken regarding conservation and protection of fish, except as outlined in subclause 36(1), on an emergency basis. Does the committee really believe this clause will fulfil our obligations under the UN treaty on fish stocks?

Furthermore, I'd like to ask the committee how we are defining fisheries resources. The definition of the term is very critical to the bill. Traditional definitions utilized by DFO in the process of negotiating memoranda of understanding with the provinces, as is currently being done on habitat issues, have a very narrow concept of what a fisheries resource is. They tend to only identify commercially valuable species or those species previously identified as commercially valuable.

While the act defines ``department'', ``law'', ``ship'', and ``minister'', it doesn't define ``fisheries resource'' or ``living biological resource'' either, which is a critical oversight. We would strongly suggest that a definition be entered into the bill.

In clause 36 we'd advocate mention of the precautionary approach or preventative measures. If the present wording stands, we're concerned that the level of proof required to prompt action remains undefined and the triggers for action aren't clear. Therefore, action will only be taken in the face of irreversible ecosystem collapse, which has basically been the model in the past.

Clause 37 establishes maximum fines in the case of violations under paragraph 35(b) and subclause 36(1). It's our belief that $100,000 as a maximum fine for summary conviction will not prove enough of a disincentive to corporate interests, and we would strongly advocate that the figure be substantially increased.

It also is a concern that the only mention I was able to find in the bill of marine pollution prevention comes under clause 41 in part III, in reference to the duties of the coast guard. It would seem to us it is very much a duty of the minister, if he is going to be taking responsibility for ocean ecosystems, to have a duty to prevent pollution of marine ecosystems entrenched in the proposed act.

.2035

Clause 42, on marine sciences...again, here not only must we ensure the term ``may'' is replaced with the term ``shall'' but we are in fact obliged to do so. Once again, I'm referring back to Canada's support for the UN treaty on migratory and straddling stocks. Article 5(j) states that coastal states ``shall'' collect and share complete and accurate data concerning fishing activities, and 5(k) in the UN treaty reads that ``coastal states ``shall'' promote and conduct scientific research in support of fishery conservation and management''. So a clear duty is established there. If we are planning as a government to ratify this UN treaty, we might as well recognize that in domestic law and entrench an obligation in the drafting of that law.

I'm going to skip here.

Again, partnership agreements: we should make sure there is a reference to transparency. While I realize some information will be treated as private-sector corporate secrets or what have you, we're not talking about the technology, we're talking about the broad principle of transparency being applied in the process of negotiating those agreements and in carrying them out. There must be access for coast community residents, fishing interests, ENGOs, and others, to know what the government is negotiating, with whom, and what commitments are being made for the sustainability and the long-term viability of ocean resources.

We would also advocate a review process for the legislation. It's difficult to draft a bill. We feel your comments earlier, Mr. Chairman, on the potential need to review and rejig an act are very important. We'd like to see that as part of the bill: that a review will be undertaken within a set time.

I think just about everything else that I have to say has already been said, probably on more than one occasion, so I'll leave it at that. If there are any questions, I'd be glad to take them.

The Chairman: Catherine, as I expected, it was an excellent brief. You hit all the right buttons and you put it together pretty cohesively. What I would ask you to do is to fax the brief you've read from to the clerk here -

Ms Stewart: Will do.

The Chairman: - because we're going to need that brief when we sit down and start looking at some of the amendments to the bill.

Clearly, some of the language you've talked about, some of the proposals you've put forward to ensure the language in this bill is consistent with the gains that have been made down at the United Nations...I think that's very valuable and very valid, and so is the whole talk about biodiversity. You're probably about the fourth witness who has pointed out that it doesn't appear anywhere in this bill. We're going to be looking at some amendments to this piece of legislation that would incorporate that in it.

The other issue that clearly needs to be fixed up is paragraph 35(b), because it talks about the fishery. Clearly that indicates, to me, anyway, there's been in a mistake in the drafting here, because when you deal with the marine resource you're dealing with more than fish. That has been raised on at least two or three other occasions. They are very important amendments to put in there if this bill is to mean anything.

The only question I had for you is similar to the previous one. Do you think some other things that aren't in the bill should be incorporated in it? We have talked about what should be changed, what should be clarified, but do you see any major thing missing that will cause this proposed Canada Oceans Act to be less successful when it's implemented than what it must be? Do you see any major oversight in this bill?

Ms Stewart: I think the oversights are the things we've already referred to in regard to realizing the vision outlined in the minister's document leading to the creation of this bill and embracing some of the more progressive principles we believe should be entrenched. I was very disappointed when I read through the bill and saw so little reference not only to biodiversity, but to marine pollution prevention; to a precautionary approach; to the control and elimination of land-based sources of pollution; to an integrated ecosystem approach to management; and also to an integrated governmental approach to management. What we see here, too, is the left hand not exactly working in tandem with the right.

.2040

It's fine for the Prime Minister to instruct Mr. Tobin to save the west coast salmon. But his own department is reporting that almost half a million of them died because of elevated water temperatures in the Fraser River, temperatures that were the hottest water temperatures ever recorded. At the same time, Canada is not living up to its obligations under the international climate treaty on the reduction of CO2 emissions. So there has to be an integrated government approach.

If we are going to sustain marine ecosystems, there is far more to it than just land-based sources of pollution and the management of ocean drilling, direct fishing activities or anything else, and their impacts on the ecosystem. It also involves ozone depletion, its impacts on phytoplankton production, the viability of ocean ecosystems, climate change, and impacts on water temperature and species health. It's all part and parcel, which is why I think it is interesting that some portions....

In some ways, I support the idea of ocean dumping still being under Environment Canada's control, even though from a logical perspective it would seem that it should be in the Oceans Act. There is a necessity for those two departments to work hand in hand and to communicate with each other. If there is some fragmentation in terms of responsibilities being under different departments, perhaps there is a greater degree of encouragement for communication between the government departments coming out of that. That can only ensure better stewardship in the long run.

The Chairman: Okay, I'm going to go over to Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal: First of all, it's good to see you again after seeing you in New York. I just want to thank you for your presentation.

You didn't talk a lot about the marine protected areas. There have been some suggestions that we should perhaps have an objective or goal in terms of how much marine protected area we should have, and a timeframe in terms of when we should have it. I wonder if you have anything in mind in terms of marine protected areas, and also in terms of what the establishment process should be. As you know, we still have to look at the process by which we determine marine protected areas. It is a process that involves a lot of consultation in a step-by-step approach of how we designate them.

Also, should we come back and review the act within three years, four years, or five years? I agree with you that it is important. It is a new act and we don't know how well it is going to work. So it is important that we have a comprehensive review from this committee at some time in the future. Maybe you could tell me what sort of timeframe you are looking at.

Maybe you can shed some light on those two issues for me.

Ms Stewart: Well, I wish I could. It's funny you should ask about the one area that we specifically really don't work on a lot, which is marine protected areas.

I know there are a number of groups who, had they been aware of these hearings, probably would have delighted to come to talk to you about marine protected areas. We'd be glad to put them in contact with you because they can give you a pretty thorough background on what their vision is of the need to create marine protected areas, and on what percentage of the marine ecosystem needs to be included in that. Perhaps they even have ideas about process.

Greenpeace does advocate the creation of marine protected areas, but with some reservation. Our concern stems from the fact that it can be an easy solution to a complex problem in some cases. Creating a marine protected area doesn't really do an awful lot for species diversity when it has an oil refinery on one side of it and a pulp mill on the other, when regulations that exist are not being enforced, and when the tidal flows and movement of species leads to direct contamination right outside - and in many cases inside - the protected area.

It is our belief that protected-area strategies are necessary, but they must go hand in hand with full enforcement of regulations on deleterious substances that exist in the Fisheries Act, and with full enforcement of CEPA regulations and the environmental laws that are on our books.

.2045

Regrettably, that's not the case. Unless the marine protected areas are accompanied by vigorous enforcement of existing laws, they may be perceived by the public as kind of a panacea and appear to be putting forward a solution that doesn't actually solve the problem. I'll defer to the groups that are working directly on MPAs as to how much should be protected and just let you know what our reservations are.

In terms of the review, I think I would advocate two to three years after the law comes into force. That seems like a short time period, but it may be necessary. Within two to three years we should start to see if there are any significant issues that need to be addressed. It would give us an opportunity to address them quickly, because I'm sure the process itself would not be that speedy.

Mr. Dhaliwal: Thank you very much.

We did have an earlier representation on MPAs from the World Wildlife Fund, but I also wanted to know what Greenpeace's view on that was. Thank you very much for your presentation. I think you have some very good ideas there and obviously they will be looked at seriously.

The Chairman: Do we have any other questions?

I want to tell you I'm really pleased that we did get to see you tonight. The comments you've made are important to us. I also asked other witnesses to think about some of the questions. You listened to other comments that have been made on other presentations as well.

We see this bill as a really important first step. We're a little nervous about it because if it's not done right this time it means the framework is wrong. If the foundation isn't right, then your house is not going to stand the rigours of weather, basically.

So if you could get that sent to us, I'd really appreciate it. If you have further comments, please let us know. As we start pulling this thing together, if you would allow us to get back in touch with you to maybe seek some further input before we report back to the House, I know I'd appreciate it.

Ms Stewart: Sure. I'd welcome that, Ron.

I would strongly urge the committee to make as much effort as possible to reach out as widely as possible. I acknowledge the fact that budget limitations prevent travel, but I do think it's very important that the object here be as wide communication as possible and that we not rush too quickly into this.

While many NGOs, including Greenpeace, a lot of the time bemoan the glacial pace of government, this bill has actually caught us by surprise. The speed at which it's being pushed through first and second reading and now suddenly the hearings, with very little notification and very low communication with the NGO community, with fishermen, and with coastal communities, many of whom don't even know this is taking place at all, is regrettable.

If I could add one final comment, it's just to encourage the government to slow down a bit and consult with the people who will be most directly affected by the proposed act. You're right; it is very significant and it could have a major impact and you need to hear from those folks.

Thank you for your time. I'm glad we ended early.

The Chairman: Thank you.

With that being said, I want to thank everybody out in Vancouver for appearing. We look forward to getting your written submissions and any other information you think might help us do our job a little better. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.