Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries
Issue 3 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 28, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries, to which was referred Bill C-26, respecting the oceans of Canada, met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Gérald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this is the third meeting of this committee to examine Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada. We have as witnesses this morning, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Mike Turner and Mr. Gerry Swanson. They are here to respond to points made at our last meeting by the witnesses from the Canadian Shipowners Association and the Chamber of Maritime Commerce, as well as to points made by Mr. Moreira.
Mr. Swanson has an opening statement which will address some of the points raised.
Mr. Gerry Swanson, Director General, Habitat Management and Environmental Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning to address a number of issues which were raised at your meeting on Tuesday.
I will be specifically addressing points raised by Mr. Moreira. I will then turn matters over to Mr. Turner, who will address matters raised by the other two witnesses who appeared at that meeting.
On Tuesday, concerns were expressed to the effect that the proposed Oceans Act might be used for purposes of fisheries management and that bodies established under the authority of this would make decisions with respect to fisheries management plans.
Mr. Moreira expressed some concerns about the appearance of the word "management" in the proposed Oceans Act and also about the fact that fish harvesters -- or the fishing industry-- were not listed specifically among the persons or bodies who were to be consulted in the operation of this act.
I will begin by speaking about fisheries management plans. Fisheries management plans usually contain provisions that relate to how much fish can be taken, who can take it, where it can be taken from, and even the size of individual fish. The authorities of the federal government and of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to make these types of decisions and to issue these kinds of plans are provided for in the Fisheries Act. No such authorities are contained in the proposed Oceans Act, which provides the minister with authorities related to the conservation and protection of the oceans themselves and their ecosystems.
As Senator Bryden outlined on Tuesday, this bill is not focused on fisheries resources; it takes a much broader approach and recognizes that it is necessary to improve the quality of oceans in order to improve the quality and potential for survival of the organisms that inhabit the oceans. This includes, of course, fisheries resources. That is really the only linkage which exists with fisheries resources that happen to occupy the oceans which this bill is addressing.
As Mr. Moreira pointed out, clause 32 permits the minister to establish or recognize bodies which may be called upon to advise or manage regional plans developed and agreed to by stakeholders. Nothing in the proposed Oceans Act provides for the delegation to these bodies of any of the authorities contained in the Fisheries Act, the proposed Oceans Act, or any other federal or provincial act related to oceans issues.
As indicated by Senator Perrault, these bodies will be region-specific advisory bodies constituted with an even representation from regional parties involved or affected by ocean-related activities. It is clear that fish harvesters, coastal communities and aboriginal representatives will be involved. It is also quite possible that representatives from other federal departments, and provincial or regional governments will be present at the table. They have ocean-related authorities under their own legislation and, as a result, would be called upon to sit on these bodies as well.
These ministers bring their responsibilities and authorities to the table to collaborate in the implementation of regional integrated management plans. There is no question that any of their responsibilities will be delegated either to the advisory or management bodies or to the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans.
The department has had some experience in developing the kind of integrated plans we are talking about and in establishing bodies to oversee their implementation. One example I would draw to your attention is the estuary management plan for the Fraser River, which was set up without the specific authority of the proposed Oceans Act. This plan was developed through a collaborative effort involving federal, provincial, aboriginal, industrial and community involvement. It has been of prime benefit to fish harvesters in the Fraser River estuary. The plan includes zones that identify areas of critical importance to fisheries management, with the net result that developments are redirected away from these fisheries efforts. The involvement of stakeholders, both in the development of these plans and their implementation, has reduced user conflicts and benefited other users of the Fraser estuary by providing a clear understanding of the rules and limitations within which they can conduct their activities.
With respect to Mr. Moreira's suggestion that the bill make specific mention of fish harvesters in the list of stakeholders, I would point out to you that in the development of the bill in the House of Commons those lists were amended specifically to include, in the broad term, coastal communities. The term translates into French as "collectivité", which encompasses fish harvesters. The expression "other persons and bodies" is a drafting term used to capture all other interested persons and organizations. It would be impractical from a drafting perspective to list all possible stakeholders.
On Tuesday, the Canadian Shipowners Association and the Chamber of Maritime Commerce focused primarily on the cost recovery provisions of the bill in the context of their application to their particular activities or fields of interest. Before closing, I would like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that the cost recovery provisions authorize the minister to recover costs for services and activities provided under the proposed Oceans Act, and the department provides more than just coast guard services in the exercise of its oceans mandate. It was essentially for these reasons that some of the proposals that were put forward to you on Tuesday were not accepted by the House of Commons.
In any case, Mr. Turner will be able to address those issues in more detail. I am now open for any questions that you may have of me before calling on Mr. Turner.
The Chairman: If Mr. Turner has some opening comments, it might be more practical for him to make them before we go to questions.
Mr. Michael Turner, Acting Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, I should like to begin by noting that the statements you heard from the witnesses on Tuesday raised several different points. We will attempt to respond specifically to those points raised by the witnesses from the Canadian Shipowners Association and the Chamber of Maritime Commerce. We would be pleased to respond to any other questions after that, of course.
The Chamber of Maritime Commerce and the Canadian shipowners have raised three substantive concerns, if we have understood their brief correctly. I will attempt to respond to each briefly in the order they were raised.
The first was the need to enshrine mandatory consultations. Mr. Swanson has already spoken to this section with respect to the representations made by the other witness on Tuesday. Concern was expressed regarding the need to ensure that shipping interests were also included among those consulted in the formulation of Canada's oceans management strategy. The witnesses pointed out the importance of marine shipping, noting that their activities could conceivably be affected by the development of the national strategy called for in Part II of the bill and the integrated management plans referred to in clause 31.
We agree with the importance of marine shipping. In that regard, I draw to your attention clause 32 of the bill, which states:
For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans, the Minister
(a) shall develop and implement policies and programs with respect to matters assigned by law to the Minister;
Since, as the witnesses note, clause 41 then assigns the minister responsibility for the coast guard services listed, and since clauses 95 through 106 further define the minister's responsibilities with respect to certain provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, all of which relate to shipping and navigation, it is our understanding and intent that the minister will be required to include in his integrated management plans provisions relating to the areas of interest set out by the Canadian shipowners and the Chamber of Maritime Commerce. In other words, they are all interconnected.
Relating to the proposal to enshrine also in this bill the need for consultation on these matters of interest to the witnesses, the effect of the wording of Part II is therefore also to require consultation on these areas as they relate to the integrated management plans and, thus, the national oceans strategy. Accordingly, it does not appear necessary to identify specifically every party with whom the minister will consult in the course of meeting his obligations under the act, as the effect of the act is to require such consultations in any event. As Mr. Swanson has pointed out, the other house took some pains to ensure that the wording was broad enough to encompass all such requirements.
With regard to the question of enshrining in this bill the coast guard and the services it provides, we were most interested to hear the views of the two organizations regarding clause 41 of the bill. They were concerned that the minister would be obligated by the bill to deliver all services listed solely and exclusively through the mechanism of the Canadian Coast Guard. As honourable senators are aware, the coast guard is now part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
However, I must advise that in our view, and that of the legal drafters of the legislation, there is no such obligation imposed on the minister by this bill. The text is intended to be authorizing legislation that clearly identifies which minister is responsible within the cabinet system of government for a range of marine services and functions, many of which have been provided in the past largely through the Department of Transport.
While it had been intended originally that this provision would identify the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is now responsible for that part of the public service known as the Canadian Coast Guard, now, through the intervention of this same group before the committee of the other house which examined this bill, amendments were accepted by the committee, and thence the house, whereby it will now be the specific range of listed "coast guard services", as was pointed out on Tuesday, for which the minister will now be responsible.
However, the minister remains responsible for the organization usually known as the Canadian Coast Guard, in any event, by virtue of orders in council passed pursuant to the Public Service Rearrangement and transfer of Duties Act at the time of the transfer of the coast guard from Transport Canada to DFO.
Whether the amendment offered by the Canadian Shipowners Association and the Chamber of Maritime Commerce during the house deliberations may have an effect other than they had intended, the department is really not in a position to say. However, it would appear that in order to achieve one of the objectives, the CSA and the CMC are now advocating in the brief presented on November 26, specifically, the second recommendation on page 9, that the services enumerated should no longer be a restrictive list of services of the coast guard and that the organization should be free to undertake whatever responsibilities may be assigned to it by ministers from time to time.
However, the notion that the text as it now stands obligates the Crown to provide such services as are listed in clause 41 is antithetical to the normal interpretation of such legislation in Canada. It is the department's view that no obligation to provide such services is imposed on the minister by this bill, by whatever means, and certainly not exclusively through his department's employees within the coast guard. Rather, the clause in question ensures that other ministers are not authorized to regulate, control or provide such coast guard services, except where specifically authorized by legislation.
A brief examination of the present situation may serve to illustrate that, in fact, the minister and his coast guard do already provide many of such services through mechanisms other than directly through the use of coast guard employees or facilities.
Perhaps I may be permitted a few examples. Every year, Canadians unfortunately finding themselves in need of search and rescue services benefit immensely from the volunteer activities of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, which is a highly cost-effective adjunct to the normal operations of the professional SAR staff of the coast guard and the Department of National Defence. It is not a part of the coast guard's public service organization.
As well, thousands of minor aids to navigation around Canadian waters are already provided and maintained, not by the coast guard, but by private operators operating on our behalf. Thousands of others are provided and maintained by private individuals.
Marine communications systems, for example, operated by private companies, already exist on both coasts for high-seas services as well as in coastal and inland waters through a variety of commercial services in the same areas in which the coast guard also provides ship-to-shore communications for both safety and commercial purposes. In fact, the coast guard is withdrawing its communication support services on certain frequencies for the high-seas service precisely because a mature commercial market now exists.
Also, across Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard has transferred much of its former responsibility for maintenance of a marine oil-spill response capability to the private sector by virtue of the provisions known as section 36 of the Canadian Shipping Act, which Parliament approved in 1973.
In short, there are already numerous examples whereby the Crown, the minister, or his department, through the Canadian Coast Guard, has already employed the means to ensure the availability or delivery of portions of the services that are listed in clause 41 of this bill, and this will no doubt continue in the future.
The witnesses also advanced an intriguing suggestion in their comments Tuesday, that of empowering or authorizing a minister not to do something -- an interesting concept. The list of things any one minister might conceivably be authorized not to do could be rather lengthy.
Let me turn now to the issue of the fixing of fees in clause 47. The third issue raised was the wording in particular of clause 47 relating to the minister's authority to fix fees for a service or the use of a facility provided under this act. As Mr. Swanson has already pointed out, this has much broader implications than simply the marine services provided by the Coast Guard.
The department is pleased to hear the witnesses and the CSA and the Chamber of Maritime Commerce confirm their "willingness to pay in an equitable manner for the services which are received from the government," though I must note that the amount the industry has been asked to pay in the current fiscal year through the new marine services fees amounts to just 11 per cent of the cost of the services provided by the coast guard for commercial shipping. Since the estimate of these costs incurred for services of direct benefit to industry do not include any of the costs of public goods services, the effect is that the amount being collected this year will come to about 3 per cent of total Coast Guard costs based on our 1995-96 accounts.
With respect to the concerns raised by the witnesses from the Chamber of Maritime Commerce and the Canadian Shipowners Association regarding the fee provisions in clause 47, the department offers the following points for your consideration. As one honourable senator has already pointed out, such fees would be subject to any regulations that the Treasury Board may make for the purposes of this section, but there remain numerous other protections as well.
The first of these is the provisions of clause 47(2) requiring that any such fees may not exceed the cost of providing the service or the use of the facility. The second is the new clause 41(2), added by the lower house, whereby the services provided pursuant to clause 41(1) are to be provided in a cost-effective manner. The third of these is the mandatory consultations provision of clause 50(1). The fourth of these is the provision of clause 50(3), whereby any fee fixed under the act shall stand referred to the parliamentary committee established under section 19 of the Statutory Instruments Act. I believe this is currently the Standing Joint Committee on Statutory and Regulatory Instruments. The fifth of these points is the provision of clause 52, whereby the administration of this act shall, within three years after the coming into force of clause 52, be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
However, aside from the fee structure itself, we believe that what the witnesses had in mind was a means whereby the coast guard would not necessarily be required to be the monopoly service provider and the members of the associations appearing Tuesday the captive clients. This is certainly not the case at present, nor is there any aspect of the bill that would create such a service monopoly. A client-specific service can be provided by the user for his own use and support, and we see no difficulty with individuals, companies and so on providing their own services, where that can be done without creating a safety hazard for others, such as would be the case where other organizations decided for some reason to duplicate the buoys placed by the Coast Guard to mark a channel, or to create a parallel vessel traffic management system in an area already served.
For greater certainty, allow me to give a specific example, which we have already suggested to the heads of the two organizations that appeared before you on Tuesday, both of whom, incidentally, presently sit as members of the Coast Guard Commissioners' Marine Advisory Board. Members of the CSA and the Chamber of Maritime Commerce have expressed the view that only one ice-breaker is required for support of Canadian commercial shipping on the Great Lakes during the period from the St. Lawrence Seaway lock closure in December to the opening of the system about the end of March. However, they have expressed concern that charges which might be introduced for the use of Coast Guard ice-breaking services during that period might be onerous and unnecessarily costly. The Coast Guard has indicated to these gentlemen that it has no monopoly on ice-breaking services; therefore, should the member companies of the Canadian Shipowners Association or the Chamber of Maritime Commerce wish to build, lease or otherwise acquire and operate a suitable ice-breaker for their own benefit, they are perfectly free to do so. Of course, they will have to pay their own costs of ice-breaking escort in lieu of what the Coast Guard might be authorized to charge for that service, but that is entirely a commercial decision within their own ability to make.
No doubt there are other examples which will be possible as well, but I believe that this one will serve to illustrate the point, and I hope it will also alleviate any concerns on this aspect honourable senators or the previous witnesses might have.
That concludes our formal remarks, but I would be pleased, as I know Mr. Swanson would, to respond to any questions which senators may have relating to the points I have attempted to address herein or any of the other matters raised by the previous witnesses concerning the services and the responsibilities of the Coast Guard.
Senator Stewart: I did not attend the last meeting because I was at a meeting of another committee; however, I have gone over the evidence that was taken and I have listened carefully to what Mr. Swanson said this morning, and I am feeling fairly sure. However, to achieve a greater sense of assurance, I wish to ask a few questions much along the line of a comment that was made by Mr. Moreira. I take Mr. Moreira's presentation very seriously, because he is a fine lawyer. When he looks at a piece of legal text, he is not looking at it with an unlearned eye.
I look at clause 32, and I see there that powers are conferred on the minister for the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans. I focus on the word "implementation". It could be that "implementation" has several meanings. One is the conception of the plan, the second would be the realization of the plan, and of course the third possibility would be to combine the two, not only the conception but also the realization of the plan.
32. For the purpose of the implementation of integrated management plans, the Minister
(c) may ...
(i) establish advisory or management bodies ...
I look at that word "or", and assuming that it is not intended to be repletive, it means that we could strike out "advisory" and it would read "establish management bodies". It would seem that, on the face of the text, Parliament is being asked to authorize the minister to establish management bodies and they would manage in the sense of realizing plans.
Quite aside from the question of whether that would relate to the fisheries directly -- not indirectly but directly -- is that a correct reading of the proposed text of the statute?
Mr. Swanson: I believe your interpretation is correct. I would like to add that statutory authorities, however, which are conferred upon individual ministers, are not affected in any way by the establishment of advisory or management bodies.
The management body would be a body established with some continuing presence to develop, within the context of all stakeholders involved, an integrated plan related to development activities within a specific geographical area. The bodies that had legislative competence would continue to exercise that legislative competence. The management group would continue to serve as a forum for the exchange of ideas, for the evaluating of the proposals which had been put in place to provide for the continued kind of integration of these various activities.
Senator Stewart: Mr. Chairman, the witness says, "to develop a plan". I take it that is another way, perhaps a more elegant way, of saying "conceive a plan". Then he says that the powers already delegated by Parliament to ministers with regard to their duties are not affected.
My question is: Are we conferring here on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the power to confer upon a so-called management body the right not only to conceive the plan, but to undertake the realization of the plan? Is it additional implementation authority?
Mr. Swanson: I do not see implementation necessarily in those terms, where a body would necessarily be set up separate and apart from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Senator Stewart: Not necessarily, but could it be done?
Mr. Swanson: I do not think the legislation would preclude that.
Senator Stewart: It would not preclude the establishment of a body which would undertake to realize a plan?
Mr. Swanson: I do not believe it would preclude that. Now, I am not quite certain what the term "realize" means in this particular context.
Senator Stewart: You have the blueprint and you go out and realize it on a building construction lot.
Mr. Swanson: Certainly. If we could return to the specific example that I was talking about, that particular plan relates to the estuary of the Fraser River, the most productive salmon-producing river on the West Coast. It also flows through the heart of the third largest city in the country. The challenges to the fisheries resource as a result of that are immense.
The group which is established under that particular plan have sat down and have agreed that we should be examining all the fish habitat within the Fraser River estuary and that we should develop a colour-coding mechanism to show, first, whether that fish habitat is absolutely critical to the preservation of the salmon stock and should not be touched in any circumstances; second, although it is fish habitat, whether development could occur in those particular areas, provided there was some mitigation put in place; or, third, that a particular area was of no particular concern to the salmon stock.
Obviously, the kind of expertise that has to go to that kind of classification system rests with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and other bodies.
This may go to your question of realization, but, in terms of mitigation, the board has proposed that we create or provide for in our plan a system of habitat banks. In other words, people who are going to be conducting development activities within the estuary can contribute dollars which would provide for the establishment of some very affected habitat outside a critical area. Then, whenever they wished to conduct some sort of development activity, they could draw from their credit in this particular bank.
That kind of innovative proposal came from the kind of management or advisory body that we are talking about here. In that sense, there is a realization of an effective way of moving forward and, indeed, addressing the kinds of concerns that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would have in terms of effecting protection of fish habitat.
Senator Stewart: Let me turn back to a question I set aside earlier, the relevance of the power sought for the ordinary commercial fisheries. Let us be candid. We are dealing with an industry that is, even in its private sectors, highly competitive; an industry that, on the East Coast, has had a very unfortunate experience. We shall not attempt to assign blame, but the feeling is, in certain sectors, that so-called big industry has been dominant in its advice to governments of one persuasion and another.
It may not be the intent of the present minister or of his officials, but there is a danger that, in a generation or two from now, we may confer upon major corporations the competence to undertake the conceptualization of a fisheries plan and then the realization of that plan.
What we have heard already this morning is somewhat reassuring, but we now come to the question I raised earlier: Does the language of any clause in this bill go so far as to allow the minister to do what he cannot already do under the terms of the Fisheries Act?
Mr. Swanson: I do not believe that there is any wording within any of the provisions we have been addressing that would specifically provide or direct the minister to favour one group over another group.
Senator Stewart: You put in the word "specifically" and that worries me.
Mr. Swanson: Yes. I will address it in another way, if I may continue. At the moment, the minister is free under the terms of the Fisheries Act -- the Oceans Act has not yet been passed by Parliament -- to consult with whomever he wishes in the exercise of his duties. There really is no direction in any statute that limits him in any way. I do not believe that there is anything in this particular statute which would do that either; nor does it direct him in any way.
The lists are meant to be inclusive in their nature. The intent of the wording was to be as inclusive and descriptive as possible.
Senator Oliver: I have two questions. One relates to clause 47, as discussed by Mr. Turner. The second relates to questions of extra-territoriality or the interrelationship between the Fisheries Act and the proposed Oceans Act. Perhaps I could deal with the latter first.
Mr. Moreira raised the matter in response to a question I posed two days ago. He is concerned that the Oceans Act is intended to manage ocean resources and that, if the department says that because we have a Fisheries Act the Oceans Act will manage ocean resources other than fish, there is not much left for the Oceans Act to do. He went on to say:
I do not say that with any intention of demeaning or belittling the concerns of industries other than the fisheries industry. However, because I suggest that one must accept that fish will be among the resources, the management of which the proposed Oceans Act will mandate, it will have, therefore, an effect on the management of the fishery.
You have today addressed the concerns Mr. Moreira raised about this interrelationship. Superimposed on that was a story which appeared in the newspaper yesterday about Spain delaying Canada's EU pact. It states:
Spain also wants Canada to do away with legislation that enabled Canadian patrols to seize foreign vessels suspected of over-fishing.
The Spanish position paper cites concerns over pending changes to Canada's fisheries law -- soon to become the New Fisheries Act.
"According to Spain's judicial services there will be more than 14 articles with extra-territorial effects," says the Spanish position paper.
If that is the case, should that not be in the proposed Oceans Act, particularly in clause 4, the one dealing with territorial zones? Secondly, can you give us some assurance that the Fisheries Act and the proposed Oceans Act will not be in conflict with other international laws and pacts?
I want to deal with clause 47 next. It seems to me that we really should have the Fisheries Act before us at the same time as we look at the proposed Oceans Act, because there will in fact be overlapping. Mr. Moreira suggested that it will create a layer of policy or of resource management considerations that exist under the Fisheries Act.
If there are two conflicting and overlapping policies under the proposed Oceans Act and the Fisheries Act, who will make the determination?
Mr. Swanson: I believe that at one of your previous sessions a witness from the Department of Justice addressed many of the legal issues related to the consistency between this bill and international law. My understanding is that the provisions of the proposed Oceans Act are entirely consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
With respect to management of resources, the Oceans Act would provide a mechanism for the Government of Canada and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to coordinate the management of ocean resources on a broad ecosystem basis.
Yes, of course fisheries resources are part of that ecosystem. It would be foolish to state otherwise. Having said that, however, it is important to look at the specific authorities in the proposed Oceans Act in terms of the type of discussion I was having with Senator Stewart a moment ago, and what those specific authorities are vis-à-vis the very specific authorities contained in the Fisheries Act itself -- the authorities to which I alluded when I made my opening remarks -- related to how the fishery is managed, the amount of fish that can be taken, and conditions of access to that resource. Those issues are in the Fisheries Act as it currently exists and will continue to be there, I believe, in whatever form the act emerges after parliamentary consideration.
There is nothing in the proposed Oceans Act that would prevent the minister from managing the fishery under the provisions of the Fisheries Act. The act enables the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to establish bodies with which to consult. By their nature those bodies will necessarily include people who are involved in the Fisheries Act. The minister and his representatives will come to these bodies with the concerns they have for the fishing industry and the authorities they have under the Fisheries Act.
Senator Oliver: What is there in the proposed Oceans Act that will determine when the minister shall use the criteria set forth under the proposed Oceans Act to resolve a fisheries matter and when he shall use the authority under the Fisheries Act? I am referring to Mr. Moreira's comment that it is bound to create a layer of policy or resource management considerations which affect the fisheries.
Mr. Swanson: I do not believe there is anything in the proposed Oceans Act that would require the resolution of fisheries disputes, if that is your question. There is no doubt that the proposed Oceans Act allows for the establishment of bodies that would include the fishing industry. There are also provisions in the proposed act, which we have not addressed specifically today or on Tuesday, that allow for the establishment of marine protected areas, which is a very specific kind of authority. Those marine protected areas could be used to protect fisheries matters and do provide more flexibility for the minister in terms of establishing specific geographic locations where there are fisheries or other marine resources at risk beyond the fishery.
That is a very specific kind of authority in the proposed Oceans Act that does not currently reside with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. However, it is an authority apart from the specific authority to establish management or advisory bodies, although the minister could establish these kinds of bodies under the authority of the act, if he so wished, in relation to a specific marine protected area. The act does not speak about that at all, but it certainly would not preclude it.
Senator Oliver: Mr. Chairman, I have some other questions concerning clause 47. However, I am prepared to defer to other senators and then come back on the second round.
Senator Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I missed some earlier meetings of the committee and it may be that my questions have already been answered. However, as I understand this bill as it pertains to an oil spill, total authority for such disasters will now come from this bill. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will have total authority in this regard. Is that correct? Or do the Department of Transport and the Minister of the Environment still have some residual responsibilities?
Mr. Turner: Mr. Chairman, as is so often the case in our complicated daily lives, this is not a situation which is 100 per cent in the realm of any one minister. The proposed act, however, does make it clear that it is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who has the lead responsibility for responses to oil spills originating from ships. These used fall under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, but are transferred to the authority of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, whereas they used to be the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. The residual responsibility that remains with the Minister of Transport is with respect to the liability and compensation provisions -- in other words, the operation of the pollution fund, the relationships with the international conventions, including the convention on the international oil pollution compensation fund, and the convention on civil liability for oil spills.
Essentially, from a policy perspective, Transport Canada will remain responsible for the liability compensation sections of the Shipping Act; the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, through the coast guard, will be responsible for the response to spills from ships, or ensuring that there is a capability there to respond to spills from ships, as I mentioned earlier. The Minister of the Environment does, indeed, have an interest in these matters and would work closely with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his staff when there is an oil spill.
Senator Marchand: I take it from what was said earlier that the coast guard has a fair amount of equipment that could be used to respond to an oil spill. However, it is still a limited amount and you depend for the most part on private entrepreneurs who might have a great deal of equipment and who may be available and ready to respond to a large oil spill.
Mr. Turner: Mr. Chairman, we have a considerable quantity of oil spill response equipment. We are the largest single holder of such equipment in the country. It is spread among depots across the marine areas of Canada in order to be handy to an area in which a spill might occur. We are, however, in a process of rationalizing that inventory. We are seeking to determine which parts of it should transferred or sold off and which other parts of it we need to maintain. Because of the provisions found in Chapter 36 of the Canada Shipping Act we have now certificated a number of commercially based response organizations. All ships above a certain minimum size coming into or operating within Canadian waters are required to have an arrangement, as it is called in the act, with a certificated response organization. Essentially, that is a company which has met certain standards that we have established in regulation as to its capability to respond to spills of certain sizes. The intent of that system is to provide a method whereby every ship is required to make a reasonable contribution toward the cost of providing the capability in case there is a spill. It is not to pay for the response to a spill.
In other words, the system which has been established provides for commercially owned and operated fire departments with fire stations set up in convenient spots and fire trucks ready to go. Companies operating ships in Canadian waters pay the cost of maintaining that oil pollution equipment. If there is a spill, the company operating the vessel will call immediately upon the private sector resources, usually a response organization with whom they have already made an arrangement, to respond to that spill. The coast guard, on behalf of the government, undertakes what we call an oversight role to ensure that the response is being done properly and adequately. We retain the authority -- and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will have the authority once this bill is passed -- to intervene and take over control of the spill, should that become necessary.
Senator Marchand: I would like some clarification concerning the research function. This bill provides the minister authority to do research on fish, for instance, and I suppose any other marine or ocean-related activity. Does that put everything, then, under this bill, for instance, as opposed to the Fisheries Act, or will there be different groups within the departments undertaking such research? Will all the research be coordinated under one single research group?
Mr. Swanson: This particular bill codifies in law activities that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been overseeing for many years in terms of research activities in a broad range of subjects related to the aquatic environment. This bill will not affect or require those activities to be changed in any way. The department will still be responsible and will continue to conduct a broad range of activities into fisheries research, oceanographic activity, and the impacts of chemicals on marine life. These kinds of things will continue.
Senator Marchand: There was some reference Tuesday to user groups in clause 32. I am happy to see that there is reference to aboriginal groups mentioned in that clause. Does such an inclusion in this bill stem from the Sparrow case? Or is it in recognition of the ongoing negotiations for, hopefully, a land settlement or any other resource kind of settlement, particularly in British Columbia?
Mr. Swanson: While the Sparrow case was particularly helpful in defining for us our responsibilities toward native peoples in relation to fisheries issues, the inclusion here is not specifically related to Sparrow, but rather, I think, to an ongoing recognition of the relationship that exists between the federal government and aboriginal peoples.
Senator Robichaud: I am a newcomer to this committee and, as you will realize, my question will prove it. I am not very knowledgeable in matters of fisheries control. What acts does this bill propose to repeal, if any, or is it simply a new creation? It is quite voluminous and elaborate. Is it all new matters which come in under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?
Mr. Swanson: It is a mix of things. Part I of the bill brings under the Oceans Act two existing pieces of legislation: the Canadian Laws Offshore Applications Act --
Senator Robichaud: Is that repealed by this?
Mr. Swanson: The effect would be to repeal that, but it would be incorporated into this piece of legislation. It is picked up and put into this legislation. Similarly, the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act in itself no longer would stand as a specific piece of legislation but would be incorporated into the proposed Oceans Act. It also makes formal declarations of Canadian jurisdiction in the marine area with the establishment of a contiguous zone and the declaration of an exclusive economic zone. These matters are dealt with in Part I of the bill.
Senator Robichaud: Where was that being taken care of before the appearance of this bill?
Mr. Swanson: We did not have a contiguous zone up until now, and we have not formally declared an exclusive economic zone either. We have had an exclusive fishing zone off our coast, but these are new declarations, new recognitions in Canadian law, of our rights and our responsibilities in the marine environment.
Part II of the act, which has been the subject of much of our discussion this morning, establishes the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as the lead federal player in terms of being proactive and managing and providing for mechanisms to manage marine ecosystems. That is really a new concept. There are many players who have responsibilities in the marine area, but this identifies one amongst those many players as being the person responsible for bringing things together, and it establishes a mechanism for a proactive approach to oceans issues on a broad ecosystem basis.
Part III of the act is more administrative in nature. It incorporates responsibilities for the coast guard within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and also, as Senator Marchand has noted, responsibilities for our science activities in the marine environment as well.
Senator Robichaud: Where in this bill is it indicated that at least two existing acts are being repealed?
Mr. Swanson: The text that I have is Bill C-26 as passed by the House of Commons, October 21, 1996. On page 33, clauses 54 and 55 deal with the question of repealing the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act and the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act.
Senator Robichaud: Has Bill C-62 been passed?
Mr. Swanson: Bill C-62 currently is at the second reading stage in the House of Commons.
Senator Petten: The Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act deals with the 200-mile limit. If they are beyond the 200-mile limit, that would not fall under Bill C-29, would it?
Mr. Swanson: Bill C-29 is the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
Senator Petten: Then I have the wrong number. I am sorry. I am referring to the act we passed very quickly some two or three years ago to deal with fishing outside the 200-mile limit, the one our Spanish friends were not too happy with.
Senator Oliver: The Tobin bill.
Senator Petten: Unfortunately, my memory is not great, and I may have the wrong number. Do you have the number there? Does this bill deal with that act?
Mr. Swanson: No, this bill does not deal with that specific issue. Bill C-29, as I believe it was referenced, was put in place to deal with specific problems related to other nations fishing off the coast of Newfoundland.
Senator Stewart: That was not a stand-alone bill, as I recall. It was an amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Is that not correct?
Mr. Swanson: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Stewart: You have, on page 36, a provision for another amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, but not relevant to the issue that was involved in the case of Bill C-29. This one is for sedentary species on the continental shelf -- scallops, for example. Section 65 refers to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
Mr. Swanson: Yes. In this particular piece of legislation, Canada is asserting its rights on the continental shelf, and it requires amendments in other pieces of legislation to reflect those new definitions and rights.
Senator Petten: If I might, it is not beyond the 200-mile limit, then.
Senator Stewart: Oh, yes, on the shelf.
Senator Petten: That is what I am trying to establish. Is it or is it not?
Mr. Swanson: Yes, senator. Our rights can extend beyond 200 miles. In situations where the continental shelf extends beyond 200 miles, our rights to the management of sedentary species living on the shelf also extend.
Senator Petten: Bill C-29 stands as it is. This act does not change Bill C-29 at all.
Senator Oliver: It is not repealed.
Mr. Swanson: No, this does not repeal Bill C-29.
Senator Robichaud: I have two bills in front of me. One is Bill C-26 and the other is Bill C-62. Bill C-26 is respecting the oceans; Bill C-62 is respecting fisheries. Both are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The numerals are simply reversed -- 26, 62. Is that a coincidence?
Mr. Swanson: There may be some significance to it, but I am not sure what it is.
The Chairman: Senator Adams has been quite patient.
Senator Robichaud: I have not had a response. Is it a coincidence?
Mr. Swanson: I believe it is strictly a coincidence. As a matter of fact, this is the second time around for amendments to the Fisheries Act. On the previous occasion, I believe it was Bill C-115. It just depends on the order in which they are put into the pot. However, I believe Bill C-62 will deal with the issue of Bill C-29. The kinds of issues that are dealt with in Bill C-29 will be incorporated into the Fisheries Act on its amendment.
Senator Oliver: That is probably what the Spanish are so concerned about.
Mr. Swanson: Yes.
Senator Adams: Mr. Chairman, my question regards environmental issues. I attended some meetings of the Polar Commission in Iqaluit beginning in October. We were given a summary report which was somewhat scary. It did not deal much with Canada but mostly with other countries, and was about the environmental effects on marine mammals and fish. We were given a lot of information on that.
I understand that other countries are doing much of the polluting in the Territories, in both the air and the water. Does the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans do much monitoring of the dangerous effects of pollution on whales and seals and caribou? We live in a cold climate in the north, and the dirty air that comes from the south drops down over the Territories as soon as it hits the cold northern air and pollutes our air and water. The water current movements are causing PCBs and other poisons to get into the marine mammals and the fish and caribou.
The St. Lawrence River is also in a bad way. Some of the whales still come up to the Territories where the people eat them. So they ingest a lot of pollution, too.
What is Canada telling other countries about this pollution? This may have nothing to do with Bill C-26, but are there other bills coming in the future?
Mr. Swanson: There are a couple of aspects of this bill that are of interest to the issues that you raise. Our department, in cooperation with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and also with the Department of the Environment, has been very interested. We have had specific research programs related to the intake by marine mammals of contaminants that eventually find their way onto the tables of our country.
This particular bill provides the minister with specific authority to establish regulations related to marine environmental quality. Of course, the purpose of those guidelines or regulations would be to track questions of ecosystem health. Those guidelines or regulations would also necessarily involve a certain amount of scientific activity and monitoring.
In terms of sources of pollution outside Canada, we are also members of various international organizations, some of which deal specifically with the north. These kinds of issues are being examined as a subject of international concern. The Government of Canada will be attempting to establish cooperative, international mechanisms to address the issues which you speak of.
Senator Adams: What about these hatching fish plants? Sometimes I like to have a taste of good fish. It is very typical in the Territories, like the south, that we have to have quotas. Michael Wilson, the former minister, was, three or four years ago, giving out fish to some of the hatching fish plants.
Locally, we have commercial fishing, especially for Arctic char. Some of the communities will have quotas. Down south now, they are getting into hatching and harvesting Arctic char in some of the lakes, I think, in Manitoba. Is the government still thinking of funding such fish plants in the south?
Mr. Swanson: I am not aware of any such programs. I could undertake to investigate that question and get back to you.
The department, however, has operated a number of hatcheries on its own on both coasts. On the Atlantic coast, we are in the process of rationalizing the operation of those hatcheries through inviting the participation of the people outside of government in the operation of the hatcheries. We also have an extensive network of hatcheries on the West Coast for the purpose of enhancing Pacific Salmon stocks.
There has also been a hatchery devoted to aquaculture investigation in Manitoba, the Rockwood hatchery. I understand that arrangements have now been made to divest the ownership of that hatchery to interests which would include the Government of the Northwest Territories.
Senator Adams: My question relates more to the local fishermen. Exporting to the communities in the south can be costly. Growing and hatching right from the lakes does not involve a cost for transportation, but we have to transport our fish by air, which can be costly. The people who buy fish say that they can buy local fish more cheaply and they cannot afford to buy it from the north because it costs too much to ship it. That is my concern. I do not mind people hatching fish, but the poor guy living in the Territories trying to do commercial fishing has no idea of how to reduce his costs in order to compete.
Senator Oliver: I would like to go to my question on Section 47. When the shipowners association appeared before the committee a couple of days ago, there were actually had two aspects to their question in relation to section 46. You have answered one part. They were concerned that a monopoly might be developed by the government and that the government might overcharge as a monopoly. They said they wanted competition because competition tends to bring down prices. The second part of their concern under Section 47 had to do with what actually goes into the costing formula.
Senator Jessiman has asked me to ask you this question: In relation to section 41(2), what is the definition of "cost effectiveness"? Who makes this determination and what are the remedies? You will recall that in their view clause 47 would permit charging fees for services whether or not they are used. If the government will be providing them a service, what accounting formulae will be used to determine the costs? Is it pure cost accounting? Can the cost ever be more than 100 per cent of a service using a purely entrepreneurial formula?
Mr. Turner: The formulae used for determining costs are laid out in the guidelines issued by the Treasury Board. There is a book available which speaks to costing guidelines for service outputs, as I believe they call it, from the government. Those are the practices we follow in determining what a particular coast guard service costs. It includes not only the annual O&M budget which we have the ability to spend directly, but employee fringe benefits, cost of capital, depreciation, overhead and all other costs in a system which is essentially a proxy for commercial costing. The costs you would see identified in that system for a coast guard service would use roughly the same approach as a commercial cost accountant would use.
Because many of our services are provided not for one specific group but for a wide range of users, we have the particular challenge in the Coast Guard of determining exactly what proportion of the cost of a service is attributable to any particular class of user. The government's traditional accounting systems have tended to focus on input factors. In fact, if you look at the government accounts, you will see line objects for things like personnel salaries, overtime, contracts, electricity, paint, et cetera.
Frankly, it is of very little use to anyone to know how much we spent on paint in Victoria. People really want to know how much we are spending on the aids to navigation that are produced at that Victoria base. We can do that through the cost accounting techniques that we have in place.
As a result of our discussions on issues such as cost recovery and marine services fees, a question is coming to the fore that is engaging the client groups directly in the dialogue across the table with the coast guard and the department in every region as well as nationally: Can we more clearly and precisely define the cost of services used by specific client groups? Therefore, we not only need to know how much it costs to produce the aids to navigation in Victoria base, but what proportion of the use of those aids to navigation is made by a particular client group, such as the coastal tug and towboat industry. That is a particular challenge, because, for instance, it is very difficult to measure the extent to which a buoy is used by a vessel on its way by.
One of the difficulties we face is that the attribution of cost to a specific group of users or a client group requires that we determine for whom the aid was established initially and to what extent the producer groups used that aid. Obviously, it is not practical for us, notwithstanding the high employment rates in some areas of the country, to position someone on a buoy to count ships going by and figure out whether they actually used the buoy to determine their position.
Senator Oliver: The shipowners have recommended that you consider adding to "cost effectiveness", "fair and equitable". They believe that if those two words were added to the formula, that would give them some comfort. What can you say about that?
Mr. Turner: In our experience in dealing with many client groups on issues of user costs and client fees, words such as "fair" and "equitable" are qualitative adjectives used to define the situation to the best advantage of the speaker. Defining "fair" in the legislation will not help in defining "fair" when you are at the table talking about the fee.
Senator Oliver: My final question also arises from the concerns of the shipowners. They spoke specifically about being forced to pay, under clause 47, for a government service that is no longer desired. In their brief, they gave one small example of that, and I would like you to comment on this. They said it means that while vessel traffic management, as an example, may become obsolete in the near future, the fee structure would support that service long after it had become obsolete. What is your comment on that?
Mr. Turner: First, far from becoming obsolete, vessel traffic management systems are a growing trend around the world. Other countries are investing vast amounts of money in improving their traffic management systems. In fact, several countries have asked the Canadian Coast Guard for assistance.
Senator Oliver: Perhaps they chose a poor example, but they do say that they can be charged for certain services that are no longer required. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Turner: The issue is who determines whether they are no long required. If the service is provided purely for the benefit and use of a commercial provider and there is no other beneficiary or user and there are no other implications to its discontinuance, then I agree that it should be within the ambit of the client to decide whether he needs to use it.
The situation with marine safety services, of which traffic management is clearly one, is that very often the beneficiaries of the service and the users of the service are not the same. The users, which may be the master or pilot on the ship, may not feel they benefit from having someone monitor the traffic with radar, thereby keeping other ships away from them. However, fishermen, riparian land users and environmental groups are deeply concerned that those services continue in order to ensure the safety of shipping and the protection of the environment.
It becomes a matter of perspective: For whom are you providing the service and to what extent is it a commercial support service as opposed to a safety or environmental service? That is the concern they raise with regard to the situation of traffic management systems, where very often the beneficiary is different from the user.
With regard to aids to navigation, usually the individual on the ship, the direct user, is also the direct beneficiary. He uses the aid to position himself. Those on the bridge may not see the benefit of traffic management as directly.
The Chairman: Mr. Turner, you answered the question with regard to "fair and equitable" posed by Senator Oliver in a rather dismissive fashion. You said that the words were merely qualitative adjectives, which is to dismiss the words as being of no use. On the other hand, you seem to accept completely the term "cost effective" for use in the legislation. How do you differentiate between the words "cost effective" and the words "fair and equitable"?
Mr. Turner: Mr. Chairman, I certainly did not mean to be dismissive; I was simply trying to point out the difficulties of interpretation. With respect to "cost effective", I regret that I did not take the opportunity to respond to that portion of Senator Oliver's question.
The term "cost effective" was not provided by the government draftsmen so much as by the committee in the other House, which proposed that as an amendment as a result of interventions from the group which appeared here on Tuesday. We are facing exactly the same difficulty in determining how one measures whether a particular service or a portion of a service used by a particular client group or portion of a group is in fact cost effective and to whom it will be cost effective.
My understanding from the wording of the bill is that it essentially becomes the duty of the minister to assure himself that those services are provided cost effectively. As you well know, the minister in turn has a number of groups looking over his shoulder, including the Auditor General and the Finance Committee of the House of Commons.
There is no doubt that after a period of application of this clause we will get a feeling of what people reading that section understand by the words "cost effective". We will have a learning experience in trying to determine what the words mean and how they are to be applied.
The Chairman: The term "fair and equitable" may be subject to interpretation right now, but in time I think it will turn out to mean exactly what the witnesses are suggesting it will mean; that is, if it is charged to them, it should be charged in an equitable manner. In other words, the fee is charged to the users, and it is charged in a fair manner.
Over time, I suppose, its meaning will become clear. I imagine that is why these people want the words in the legislation, just as "cost effective" is.
Mr. Turner: I believe that is correct, sir, yes.
The Chairman: The shipowners association, as well as the fishing industry, were excluded from a list of a number of very specific groups that are mentioned in the bill. Other groups are thrown into a pot called "others". The shipowners and the fishing industry are thrown into this classification "others". Do you not feel as drafters that it was rather sloppy to exclude the fishing industry from this list in the legislation?
Mr. Turner: I believe there was some consideration of that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Swanson has pointed out already this morning that in the other House there were amendments offered with the clear intention of ensuring that the words were broad enough to encompass all who have an interest in these matters.
The Chairman: What happens is that, by inclusion, you automatically arrive at an exclusion. That is what these people were suggesting.
Mr. Turner: That is correct, which is why the words must be broad.
The Chairman: They must be very broad. That is why people who look at legislation very seriously, as they should, question these kinds of decisions. I do not know what the reason was for excluding the fishing industry and the shipping industry. It certainly sent a very negative image to these people.
The last question I have has to do with clause 32(c) (i), which has to do with the management question. You gave the example of the Fraser River management group with which I am not at all familiar. Do they execute the plans which they plan and implement?
Mr. Swanson: The execution would be left to the jurisdiction that has that responsibility. For example, in that particular case there may be requirements for municipal zoning, since it lies within established municipal organizations. The kind of zoning that would come out of the deliberations of the group would, in fact, be done by the municipality.
The Chairman: If Bill C-26 provides the minister with the ability to establish a management body to plan, implement and execute whatever those plans are, could it not also provide the minister with the authority to establish a management plan, for example, to deal with fishing on Georges Bank, or a lobster fishery management plan by a management group which the minister could put together?
Mr. Swanson: I do not believe that the legislation envisages that, because the elements that are requisite to a management plan are dealt with under the Fisheries Act.
Certainly, if one of these organizations existed, the minister or his representatives could say at the table, "Here are our fisheries considerations as encapsulated or contained in the fisheries management objectives or plan that we have for the species, the area or whatever."
The Chairman: Clause 32(c)(i) states that the minister can establish advisory or management bodies whom he appoints. Could this management body not then manage the Georges Bank cod fishery, for example?
Mr. Swanson: There is nothing in the bill that provides for the delegation of statutory authorities to these bodies.
The Chairman: Under the Constitution the minister could not do it either, could he? The minister could designate a body other than himself.
The word "management" connotes "to manage". "Management" means: to plan, organize, coordinate and execute a plan, something which is managed. The word "management" worries me.
Mr. Swanson: The word "management" in this clause of the bill is a term that is used and is consistent with the concept of integrated coastal zone management, which is a concept that has considerable acceptance in international discussions these days. In that sense, it relates to a process. It relates to the inclusion of stakeholders who have an interest. It relates as well to being anticipatory and planning so as to avoid resource conflicts.
In specific answer to your question, senator, there is nothing here that would prevent the minister from relying on a particular organization for advice. However, to get back to the point you made, the responsibilities that the minister has for the management of the fishery are still his responsibilities. In terms of the way we have organized ourselves legislatively, those responsibilities are within the Fisheries Act, which will, when the new bill reaches the Senate, provide for the establishment of partnerships with industry organizations, and will involve them in a much more direct way in management decisions related to the fishery.
The Chairman: I will not flog this dead horse any longer. I have flagged the issue, and it has been flagged by others. It has created quite a bit of worry, and it is still creating some worries in some sectors.
Senator Landry: You talked about protected marine areas and what happens when there is an oil spill. If there is an oil spill around a beaver dam, which department takes care of that?
Mr. Turner: Senator, are you referring to a spill from a ship or to a mystery spill that is in the water?
Senator Landry: I mean a spill from a boat.
Mr. Turner: What is the relation to this beaver dam?
Senator Landry: A beaver dam can flood a river. Who takes care of it?
Mr. Turner: Do you mean the oil spill or the beaver dam?
Senator Landry: Both.
Mr. Turner: From the point of view of the oil spill, if the oil spill is from a ship source or is a mystery spill in the water, for which the coast guard normally provides service or support, we would ensure that the polluter cleans up the oil. If that includes oil getting into a beaver dam, then he has the problem of cleaning up that mess.
Regulations concerning the care or feeding of wildlife are usually a provincial responsibility in the kind of situation to which you are referring, and, since they are not considered marine animals, then, obviously, the Department of the Environment would have some interest in that matter as well. The protection of the beaver on site, if that is what you are referring to, would be the concern of both federal and provincial environment departments. We would take their advice in ensuring that whoever was cleaning up the oil spill took care not to endanger the beaver, if that is the concern.
Senator Landry: Is the environment department a very old department, or has it been formed in just the last 10 or 15 years?
Mr. Turner: It was 1968 for the federal department, which is Environment Canada. Provincial departments of environment are usually newer than that.
Senator Landry: What happens when a department of the Government of Canada does some wrongdoing? Who goes after them?
Mr. Turner: That, sir, would depend entirely upon the individual situation and whatever legislation prevails in that case.
Senator Landry: I asked you how long ago it was that the environment department had been established, because between the 1950s and the 1960s, the Government of Canada was building causeways and blocking channels, which hurt the fisheries significantly.
Senator Stewart: The Canso causeway is an example.
Senator Landry: That is not the only one.
Mr. Turner: I am familiar with some of them, particularly in the Maritimes, and I am aware of the problems which have arisen. Serious situations have been created.
Senator Landry: Was there no department of the environment at the time?
Mr. Turner: No, there was not. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, we are much better equipped to know what kind of damage might be created by some of the civil works that have been built in the past. Unfortunately, learning from our mistakes is very expensive. In fact, this bill provides particularly for the development of plans and for thinking through in advance how best to protect the oceans' environment in the future, which should help avoid those kinds of situations in the future.
Senator Landry: Before the fixed link was commenced, there were great concerns. Which department is responsible for the Canso causeway?
Mr. Turner: The rock forming the causeway is owned by the federal Department of Transport. The roadway on top is owned by the provincial government. The power lines are owned by Nova Scotia Hydro. The cable ducts are owned by Transport. The bridge and the rail line are owned by the railway. The coast guard owns the Canso lock.
Senator Landry: The Canso causeway is not the only one. They are blocking channels to make tourist attractions. I find that they overdo it with tourist attractions at times.
Mr. Turner: Sir, I am not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that the best recourse in the case of some of these long-standing problems caused by structures that were built prior to the regulatory environment we have these days, which does not permit certain types of construction, is to fall back on tort law. Those senators who are from the profession will recognize what I am saying. There is always the right, if you can prove damages, to go after the individual cause of damage if the damage is not something which has been authorized specific to an Act of Parliament. Perhaps there are other avenues which could be explored in that sense.
The Chairman: Senators, how would you like to proceed with this bill?
Senator Petten: I move that we report the bill without amendment.
The Chairman: It has been moved by Senator Petten that the bill be reported to the Senate without amendment. Are there any questions? If not, would all those in favour signify by saying "aye."
Hon. Senators: Aye.
The Chairman: We have unanimous consent to report back, so that shall be done as soon as possible.
We will be distributing to committee members today or tomorrow some proposals for future business which I would like to bring before the committee next Thursday at 9:30 a.m.
The committee adjourned.