Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 25 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 7, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C- 10, respecting the marine conservation areas of Canada; and Bill C-39, to replace the Yukon Act in order to modernize it and to implement certain provisions of the Yukon Northern Affairs Program Devolution Transfer Agreement, and to repeal and make amendments to other Acts, met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order. Appearing today are witnesses from Canadian Heritage.
Mr. Tom Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency, Canadian Heritage: It is a pleasure to be here again. We have circulated an outline of our presentation for your convenience.
We have a family of protected heritage areas in Canada and I do not think I need to remind this committee of why these are important. However, I will summarize my views on these items — the parks, the historic sites, the canals and rivers. With Bill C-10, the marine conservation areas constitute items of great importance to Canadians. These areas are among our top-ranked symbols of pride, and any public surveys will show that national parks rate highly, ranking third just behind the national anthem and the flag, with historic sites ranking fifth.
These places are important because they also connect our country. They connect our people to our land and waters, to our history and to each other. They are important in our economy, in particular the economies of the rural and northern communities. Every $1 that the government spends on these areas generates $3.50 worth of activity. Across Canada, this currently totals in the order of $1.8 billion per year.
The parks, historic sites, canals and rivers are also important symbols internationally. When people talk about Canada, they talk about our wild spaces. Many people in the international community are able to name many of our national parks. They are known worldwide. That is the ``family.''
The one part that is missing is the marine conservation component. Canada has so much water, and we can see from the history of the very first people up to our modern-day communities that people have centred on the waters of this country, in the coastal areas and the inland lakes. We are introducing the marine conservation areas to complete the representation of our heritage areas, and specifically, those connected with water.
What are the key features of a marine conservation area? First, national parks occur on land and are what we describe as ``fully protected.'' They exist, to the greatest extent possible, to allow nature to take its course and to serve as spaces people can visit and see the land as it was in earlier times — not after we did many things to it.
Marine conservation areas are different. They contain a powerful and strong conservation component. They are also intended to be models of sustainable use. The fisheries and other wildlife resources are intended for use, and we hope that, with the increased emphasis and focus on these areas, they can be models to help us understand and improve our practices outside of marine conservation areas. These are distinct from parks, of which Parks Canada is the sole owner and manager and, in some cases, in a fully cooperative partnership with Aboriginal people. There are many players in the area of waters, and they are managed as partnerships.
What value-added would Parks Canada bring to the table? Why not another, existing agency? There are a number of answers to that. First, when you look at the other players, whether Transport or Fisheries and Oceans, you will note that these organizations and their respective legislation are dedicated towards, for example, managing commercial transportation, the fisheries or the wildlife. We bring our skill and ability to the package. I do not want to use the words ``managing people,'' but rather ``assisting people'' to enjoy these areas in a different way — something that no other agency brings.
We also bring some different views of these places. We were involved in major articles that ran in the Vancouver papers about one month ago concerning our work in Gwaii Haanas with the Haida Gwaii in the field of archaeology. We have discovered ancient civilizations beneath the Pacific Ocean that were part of the Haida culture at a time when the ocean levels were different from today.
Interestingly enough, we have made a similar discovery in Fathom Five Park on the Bruce Peninsula, Ontario. We discovered, lying beneath the waters of Georgian Bay at a depth of more than 80 feet, what would have been an ancient waterfall when the water level was lower. At its foot, we found the remains of an ancient campfire.
We have also discovered, in our underwater work, some most interesting species representing the evolution of natural systems over time, such as ancient forests, plants, et cetera. This is what we bring to Canadians and other people when they visit these sites.
A key feature in the establishment of a marine conservation area is the nature of the public dialogue that occurs. We have heard some concerns in the course of our discussions about the nature and degree of involvement of people. I would like to give you a quick summary of a current activity to illustrate how these areas are created.
We are currently involved in a dialogue in the north shore area of Lake Superior about a feasibility study. The feasibility study began in 1997, so we are now in our fifth year. It took us five years to reach the point where the communities felt that they would like to have one. We have only just recently — in January — begun negotiations with the Province of Ontario toward the possible establishment of a marine conservation area in Lake Superior.
We struck a regional committee composed of 12 or 13 organizations — municipalities, First Nations stakeholders and so on. These people conducted a variety of public consultations using three rounds of open houses, four newsletters and two series of question-and-answer sheets. I held seven roundtables with stakeholder groups and met at least a dozen times with the regional committee. Field trips were conducted throughout the area in three consecutive years. Two surveys were conducted, the first to acquire feedback on possible boundaries and the second to determine overall levels of support.
After all of that, toward the end of the fourth year of the work, the committee gave me their recommendations, which were positive about establishing the area.
That is an example of the type of effort that must be expended in the establishment of such areas. There is no scenario under which we would establish an area over the wishes of local people. We do have an example of that, which I do not like to quote because I consider it a failure. We had an interest in establishing one on the Bonavista Peninsula in Newfoundland. Unfortunately, it did not work out. We saw the local people did not want one. They were not ready, so we pulled out. That is the way we have worked and will work in the future.
The proposed legislation applies to the great lakes and tidal waters out to 200 nautical miles. It requires that the federal government own the bed of waters. The proposed act allows the establishing of reserves where there are unresolved matters associated with Aboriginal land claims. There is a ``without prejudice'' establishment of a reserve. That has worked in national parks. The areas are established by Order in Council, with scrutiny by both Houses in Parliament.
A number of regulatory authorities are required for these areas when they do not occur in other statutes. For example, commercial shipping might require some special consideration. It would be regulated by the Department of Transport through the Shipping Act, not this proposed act. Gaps occur in areas such as special zoning, visitor use and safety. An example is commercial recreational use in Saguenay Marine Park, which has its own separate legislation. We have 50 commercial tour boats operating whale-watching cruises every day in the summer. That requires control and regulation of the number and the nature of their activities and their relationship to the whale population. The enforcement provisions are similar to other statutes. This parallels the provisions in the National Parks Act.
The federal government has a history in marine conservation areas dating back to 1986, although I must tell you that my involvement goes back to well before that. I was involved with the Province of Ontario in establishing what is now Fathom Five National Marine Conservation Area in the very early 1970s. It was the first such protected area in Canada.
In 1996, the Prime Minister announced to the World Conservation Congress, which was held in Montreal, his intention to introduce this legislation. It is six years later and we are ready to bring this one home.
A number of questions have been raised, which I will summarize for you. I talked about whether or not there is duplication. There is not. Partnerships between agencies are required to achieve common interests in these areas. We bring some special qualities to the table that other organizations do not. We do not intrude on provincial jurisdiction. No area would be established where the province has control over the seabed without its agreement.
In the process of developing this bill, we held a number of sessions with Aboriginal people, as well as a number of additional consultations during hearings of the Heritage Committee. We improved the bill as a result of those consultations. We were not able to accommodate some of the interests and proposals raised by Aboriginal people. We were not able to utilize this bill to further define rights, add rights and so on. We respect the rights that are provided for through the Constitution.
There is some interest in the non-derogation clause and others. The non-derogation clause neither adds to nor reduces the rights of parties as provided by the Constitution. It is a declaratory clause to add greater certainty. It simply restates that the rights provided under the Constitution are protected. It has been written to confirm the application of the Constitution even as various interpretations of the courts help us to define the meaning of rights under section 35. An example is the interpretation provided through the Sparrow case, in which the court laid down certain tests that must be met before the federal government could intervene where there were serious conservation or safety issues needing to be fixed.
The Sparrow case provided the methodology for how to interpret the issues within the framework of the Constitution.
Some parties who engaged in the discussion have urged more prohibitions. For example, they have encouraged prohibitions on bottom dragging for fish. We believe that there will be cases where that will need to be regulated. The bill provides for regulation, but it does not begin by saying, ``We will prohibit a whole bunch of stuff.''
As we develop the plans for local areas with local people, we will introduce the appropriate regulations. It is possible that that will require some prohibitions, but we will not begin by saying prohibit this and prohibit that.
Does the bill stand in the way of economic opportunities? It does not. I have indicated to you that our system of protected areas is one of the best investments that Canadians can make. If you can go to your bank and get $3.50 for every dollar that you put up, you are getting a pretty good rate of return. That rate of return is going to the local people.
Does Parks Canada have enough to do? Yes, we have too much to do. However, that does not mean that we should not move ahead with this bill. It is a fair question. My staff sometimes asks this question. I tell them to go back in history to the people who created Banff in 1885 and the people who continued that process. Those people did not say that they should not do this because they had too many other things to do. They moved ahead, and we should all be very thankful that they did.
We can do this, and we need to do this, in Canada. The marine conservation areas and the water are so much a part of our history, our culture and our values. These areas deserve to become part of the family of protected areas in Canada.
We outlined briefly some of the areas in which we are currently involved. We have operating areas at Fathom Five. We have a reserve in place in the Queen Charlottes. We have feasibility studies underway on Lake Superior in Ontario and Georgia Strait in B.C. We have a special bill for the operating area of the St. Louis, Saguenay and Saint Laurent area that has its own unique qualities because it is a partnership with the Government of Quebec. We would manage the water portion and they the adjacent system of land-based provincial parks. The two are folded together. This particular bill would provide for that special type of partnership.
I will conclude at this point and would welcome questions.
Senator Cochrane: Thank you, Mr. Lee. It is good to see you again. I am surprised to see you because I had thought that you had retired.
Mr. Lee: The local newspaper asked me yesterday if it were true that I had retired.
Senator Cochrane: It is not only I. What are some of the objections to Bill C-10?
Mr. Lee: I have outlined a few.
Senator Cochrane: You mentioned dragging.
Mr. Lee: One objection is the fear, which is unwarranted but present and must be addressed, that somehow we will impose these areas against people's wishes. We clearly are not going to do that, and the bill provides a very orderly mechanism for ensuring that adequate public consultation occurs. However, that is a concern.
You will hear a concern from the West Coast, particularly from oil and gas industries, that we will establish these areas and remove opportunities to exploit oil and gas resources. We will not do that. We will always seek to avoid that type of conflict.
Three companies held oil and gas rights in the Gwaii Haanas Marine Conservation Area. Those companies concluded that there was nothing there of commercial value and voluntarily gave those rights over to us.
I would not say that there are objections, but there are concerns, which I hope that we have answered, in the Aboriginal community that their rights are protected. Their hopes go well beyond that. They want the fullest possible partnership in seeing these new areas go ahead. We support that.
Finally, the possible impact on existing commercial activities, like fishing, for example, is a concern. People in the aquaculture industry want assurances that marine conservation areas can accommodate aquaculture. They can. People involved in commercial activities want some assurances that we are not introducing a new regulatory environment, and we are not. The regulatory environment will be that of the Fisheries Act.
Those are probably the major concerns, Senator Cochrane.
Senator Cochrane: Once the boundaries of these marine conservation areas have been established, what would you do if a major development were undertaken just outside?
Mr. Lee: This bill would not have any influence on that. I will give you an example — water pollution. If there were an existing or a proposed development outside the boundaries that might pollute the area, it would be handled under the appropriate environmental laws. We are not introducing new tests here.
However, we would not permit ships to dump inside these areas or otherwise pollute.
Obviously, it would be desirable if adjacent land uses were as compatible as possible with the conservation areas. However, they would be managed in much the same way as national parks. We have very few tools for dealing directly with a development adjacent to Waterton Lakes Park, for example. Nevertheless, we do try to work with local communities to give them a sense of zoning or land use.
Senator Cochrane: If some ships were dumping, how would you control it? You say that you would not allow it. How would you control it? Currently, DFO is having a problem with ships dumping old oil.
Mr. Lee: There is existing legislation that can be used to regulate that.
If additional regulation were required, we could do something under this bill. The difference would be that we would be present in these places. That is a little different from the rest of the oceans, or even fisheries. Where these places exist, we will have regulatory officers in place with the ability to take action.
Senator Cochrane: I am rather concerned that there are so many other departments involved in this: Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, and Parks Canada. Under the Oceans Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the lead federal role in coordinating the efforts of the three departments. Do you think this will be a problem?
Mr. Lee: No. Interlocking groups work horizontally across any ocean conservation area. There are existing examples. As I say, we have some operating examples such as Fathom Five and Saguenay. We are not having a problem with other partners. They are there with us. I would say the same about the role of Environment and their wildlife-protected areas in the ocean. There is no duplication of effort, nor is there any competition. Each of us brings something unique to the table. I indicated that Parks Canada, because of its interest in people, history, archaeology and so on, really does bring something unique to this.
The Chairman: You have a prohibition against oil and gas exploration and extraction on the West Coast and, of course, in the Arctic. I know that a few people will be very interested in that. It is quite possible to explore while hardly disturbing the water. You can do it by flying over the water or by taking marine seismic soundings. There is very little disruption. Also, the oil industry is now able to pump 5 kilometres. In the next 10 years, it may go to 8 or 10 kilometres with a snorkel-like device. It does not affect the seabed in any way. This seems to prohibit that. Am I wrong?
Mr. Lee: It does. Our view is that risks still remain, even with the current technology. Our preference is to do that work beforehand and to avoid those areas. We simply do not want to be where there is oil and gas activity occurring. Consider the example I gave you of the industry in Gwaii Haanas. They did their exploratory work, determined that there was no commercial benefit and then gave up that interest. That is the way we want to go. The other alternative exists, but we do not want to pursue it.
The Chairman: I am not too sure that would keep the industry happy. It lives on finding oil where another guy said there was none. It has been that way for quite a few years.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Lee, is there any intension to establish marine parks in the Northwest Territories?
Mr. Lee: The long-range plan will ultimately see 29 areas established in defined zones, including a number of potential areas in the Arctic. You will see on the map that was distributed to you that the ocean is broken up into various zones. We would like to see, over the long term, one area in each of those zones. To give you an example to illustrate the scale, go to Gwaii Haanas on the Pacific Ocean and look at zones 1 and 2, which are two distinct biological environments. The marine conservation area occupies a very small portion of those two zones.
The Chairman: How many kilometres would that be?
Mr. Lee: I will guess because I have canoed on it. It is about a four-day canoe trip, so probably about 150 kilometres long.
The Chairman: That is a big park.
Senator Sibbeston: I want to raise the issue of the non-derogation clause to which Mr. Lee referred. The clause that appears in this bill is the same as the one in the Nunavut water bill and also the Yukon Act. It seems that since 1996, the government has been using non-derogation clauses that are different from the original one that was included in a number of acts and which really reflects the wording in section 25. I recognize that there have been some Supreme Court of Canada decisions that have given some meaning and some interpretation to Aboriginal rights in our country as provided for in the Constitution. Aboriginal people are very concerned about this different wording. Rather than it being used as a shield or a protector of their rights, they are concerned that it may be used to define and interpret Aboriginal rights as less than they had hoped for. There is a concern now that this clause, which is so important to them and has been seen as a shield, will be used to take away from Aboriginal rights in Canada. I am very concerned about the non-derogation clause in this bill. My wish and hope is that somehow, we can work toward including the non-derogation clause that had been used previously and revert back to the wording in section 25 of the Constitution. Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. Lee: First, I might say that I am aware of the concerns and that I appreciate them. We have had long discussions with representatives of Aboriginal people on this item. You must understand that I am not a lawyer. However, I do talk to lawyers and I do try to understand the problem.
The first point is that Aboriginal people need not fear, in my opinion, that this clause will be used against them. You cannot write something into this bill that overrides the Constitution. That is not happening. This is simply a declaratory clause to reconfirm that the Constitution applies. Quite frankly, if this clause were not in here, it would not make any difference. The Constitution would still apply.
These clauses actually started to appear at the request of the Aboriginal people. The Department of Justice was advising us that they were not needed because this bill cannot contain anything that constrains the Constitution anyway. This is in here because Aboriginal people originally wanted some reconfirmation. As we tried to work through this with them, some of the wording that was proposed constituted an extension or interpretation of Aboriginal rights. You cannot do that in this bill. It is not possible.
Senator Sibbeston: I appreciate your explanation. It just seems to me that if government views this as a declaratory type clause that neither takes away from nor adds to the Aboriginal rights, why not stay with the original clause that seemed to serve the purpose from when Aboriginal rights were included in the Constitution in the early 1980s until about 1996?
I am concerned that there was a sudden change in wording in 1996, and that sometimes a clause talks about the protection provided for, and then in another case about derogation from the application. Lawyers who are familiar with this area of law say that that creates confusion and could be used as a signal to the courts that now Aboriginal rights can be limited. That is what native people are so concerned about.
The Aboriginal rights issue is very important in our country. We have a long history of dealing with native people, and some of it has not been good. The significant point for Aboriginal people is that this protection of their rights was placed in the Constitution in 1982. Thereafter, proposed legislation such as this contained wording that was exactly the same as the wording in section 25, which provided for the protection. The wording is:
The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights...
That is the wording in section 25 and that is the wording that was used in federal legislation until 1996. However, for some reason, it has been changed. Native people are very concerned that this will be a signal to the courts that they can limit Aboriginal rights. It does not seem significant when one first reads the text. I have looked at it, and on a first reading, there is not a great deal of difference. However, the lawyers and experts in this area advise us that we ought to be concerned. This is the beginning of a process for Parliament to take rights away from Aboriginal people in our country.
While I recognize that the courts will ultimately decide how these laws are interpreted, we ought not, as Parliament, to make it easy to signal to the courts that this section is open to interpretation so that it somehow limits the Aboriginal rights. I am very concerned, and while I appreciate that you are not the lawyer who made the decision, you are responsible for the bill.
Mr. Lee: Senator, let me say that I very much appreciate what you are saying. We all need to be reminded that in the history of our country, we did not do as good a job in this area as we should have or could have. I personally would not want to include anything in this bill that was retrogressive. That is one of the reasons that in discussions with Aboriginal people, we suggested that if they really felt that this was retrogressive, we should take it out. We do not want to go backwards, so let us simply take it out, because your rights are fully protected.
I have not been able to find a solution. I am convinced that there is no intent to be retrogressive here. This is a declaratory clause that says that the Constitution applies. I never, in any of my discussions with lawyers who did the drafting, received any indication that they had written this in such a way as to start a retrogressive action. As a matter of fact, the Department of Justice advised us that we did not need this. As I say, it started to be included in legislation originally because Aboriginal people wanted it.
I am sorry that I cannot give you any more comfort than that.
The Chairman: On the land claims issue, First Nations people are concerned that the land they will receive under their claims may be encumbered, either because the government of the day has already given oil and money rights, or because Heritage Canada has already declared part of it to be a park. The First Nations may want to get the land back and develop it. How do you handle that? First Nations people may be receiving lands that are encumbered for a number of reasons. It is not just a case of economics.
Mr. Lee: We have two different situations. The first is the ``old world'' way when things were done differently, and people from other parts of the world were settling Southern Canada. National parks such as Banff were established. Those lands are mostly considered to be in the ``taken up'' group, where decisions were made to sell land and so on. There are cases where the courts have said there are residual rights, and we will respect those rights.
When we move into the modern world, national parks — unfortunately, I did not bring the statistics with me — including national marine conservation areas where applicable, are established in cooperation with Aboriginal people. You may not be aware of this.
I will get the correct figure later, but I will give you an estimate. I believe that 67 per cent of the current total area of national park has been established through a land claim process in cooperation with Aboriginal people. We are in a co- management mode. That does not mean everything is going perfectly. There is work to be done. We are learning to work together in a different way.
The recent history is different from the earlier history. The only thing I can say is that we will definitely move ahead in that fashion. However, there is one underlying premise. When we decide to establish a national park or a national marine conservation area, we are making a permanent decision. This is not temporary. We do not say, ``We think we will have a national park for 10 years.'' We will have it forever. That is the objective and the understanding. We will not enter into something that falls short of that. These places are long term. I am not saying people cannot change their minds. However, the fundamental premise, when we establish a national park, is that we are there for the very long term.
Senator Christensen: Mr. Lee, when we look at the overall picture, certainly there is a lot of opposition and fear among persons living in coastal areas because, of course, of what happened in the not-too-distant past to the fisheries and the loss of that industry, in many cases. People trying to create another livelihood through mining or oil, or even developing an inland fishery, hear the term ``marine conservation area'' and understand that as ``fish conservation area,'' because it is ``marine,'' it is in the water, and that is where the fish are.
Perhaps the consultation process has not been as effective to date as it should have been. I am wondering if your department has looked at ways to implement a better consultation process. When you look at the bill, it is certainly driven by the region. Lands under the jurisdiction of the province are not affected. If the area is not wanted, it is not affected. Fisheries will continue. These areas do not affect the fishery. It is more historical, physical underwater features that are being protected.
There is provision for mining oil or whatever in the general area. I am sure you have addressed this subject. I am wondering what your plans are for a better consultation process so that people do understand and do not feel as threatened.
I think the concept is excellent and that we must look at this sort of thing. At the same time, people must buy into the program.
Mr. Lee: This is a very good question, senator. I do not think I have the perfect answer. We made a mistake with Bonavista. We did not go about it in the right way. We did not put the proper structure in place, although we did not deliberately set out to do it wrongly.
I had a very intensive session with my staff afterwards. I was not being critical, but asked them, ``What went wrong here? You cannot win all the time. Did we do our job well?'' We concluded that we did not. We were starting up Lake Superior at that time. If we had made mistakes, I did not want to make the same ones again. We did a whole series of things quite differently.
This is the interesting part. We began that process by establishing a committee of, I think 12 people, and probably seven or eight of those started out by saying that they did not want this area. So far, we had not done anything wrong. We started the process in 1997 and they gave me their recommendations one year ago. I received 100 recommendations in which they fully supported establishing the area.
The principles that drive me are, first, to be a good listener, to take time, to respect the people with whom I am working, and to engage as much of the community as possible. However, it is a learning experience for everyone. One must take it one small step at a time.
The problem occurs when you arrive and make a big announcement — people like to make big announcements — that you are doing a feasibility study. Suddenly, everybody sits up and says, ``How does it affect me?'' I thought about this a lot and I know we can do it right. I also know there is always the opportunity to make mistakes.
This applies more to national parks, but I think also to marine conservation areas: If you can get people to a feasibility study, if you can get them prepared to work and think about it, you will have success. The failure occurs when people do not understand what is going on.
There is always a certain amount of mischief in this type of process. There are mischievous people who, for various reasons, do not want to see this happen. You must manage that. I say, take time, respect local people and make sure you engage them. I have a great deal of faith in people and their ability to look at something and decide, ``I want it,'' or ``I do not want it,'' or ``I really like it, but I want it shaped this way.'' If you go about it that way, it will be a success.
Senator Christensen: I think it is a totally different concept from the national parks. From the study that we did with Senator Sibbeston in the North, we know that the old-time concept of national parks was that you put a fence around it and protect it, with everything inside being Parks Canada and everything outside something else. I think people must, as a result of good consultation and ``marketing,'' if you will, understand there is a big difference.
Do you see other areas becoming marine conservation areas? I am thinking here of the Yukon, and in particular, the Beaufort Sea. There has always been considerable discussion of the gold rush marine trail, through Lake Bennett and Tagish, and down the Yukon River as being a historic or heritage site. Do you see that falling under a plan like this?
Mr. Lee: No, it would not. The Klondike Trail, including the Lake Bennett section, has been declared a national historic site.
Senator Christensen: Is it a national historic site all the way to Dawson City?
Mr. Lee: No, it does not go to Dawson City. It is possible that it could be considered, but it would not be under this bill. It would likely be under Heritage, historic sites.
The Chairman: This bill is important. It deals with conservation, heritage and Aboriginal rights. We also must get the Yukon bill through. After Senator Adams's question, we will adjourn this part of the meeting and arrange for Mr. Lee and his staff to come back another time, but as soon as possible. The quality of your information is such that we want to hear more of it.
Mr. Lee: Thank you.
Senator Adams: You have been consulting some of the Aboriginal leaders?
Mr. Lee: We consulted broadly with Aboriginal leaders through the AFN, the Inuit and the Inuvialuit representatives, and a number of chiefs from various parts of Canada. As a result, we did make a number of changes to the bill. For example, we added a clause on traditional ecological knowledge. We modified what is now subclause 4(2) to allow for a variety of claim processes other than just the comprehensive claims. We made that clause more flexible.
We added a clause to allow the Governor General to remove lands from a marine conservation area reserved by Order in Council if a court found that we had, in part, overridden some Aboriginal interests. Where that is determined, we do not have to go back to a legislative process. We added an amended subclause to make it clear that the minister must consult with those listed and with Aboriginal organizations. The requirement to consult on regulations was expanded. Those are some of the ways in which we have managed to accommodate Aboriginal concerns.
It is fair to say we that have not consulted with every band and every Aboriginal organization in Canada. The time to consult with them comes when you ask if they would be interested in having one of these areas. That would then be a very intensive consultation.
Senator Adams: When we settled a land claim in Nunavut, water was included — the sea — and about 50 per cent is Nunavut water. A lot of the marine areas are used for country food — fishing and hunting for seals and other animals that we have in the Arctic. I remember that before Parks Canada privatized it, the minister included one clause indicating that in future, when the area is Aboriginal, there will be consultations. This time, I do not see it in Bill C-10. You mentioned some part of the land claim process being included.
Mr. Lee: I think we have covered that under 10(1), and we made this modification with the assistance and advice of Aboriginal people. We strengthened this. We said that the minister ``shall'' consult with Aboriginal organizations, governments and bodies established under land claim agreements. We think we have it all in there now.
Senator Adams: We have quite a few mammals, especially belugas. According to Fisheries and Oceans, the population is increasing in some areas and becoming extinct in others. In some places, there should be no hunting. In the future, will Bill C-10 make it possible to establish an area to protect mammals in the sea that are becoming extinct?
Mr. Lee: If an area were established, for example, off Baffin Island or Pond Inlet, this bill would help local people manage those populations and sustain them. Along with appropriate provisions from other acts, it would ensure that that species did not become extinct and add the knowledge of the local Aboriginal people to the management of the areas, not just university scientists' information. The local people might see some of those things as helpful and it would expand their interest in being involved in a partnership in such an area.
Senator Adams: At one time, in Tuktut Nogait Park — I am still not too happy about it — Parks Canada found 20 per cent more oil, but said, ``According to the rules, Senator Adams, we cannot extract it.'' They lost that 20 per cent. In the future, for mining, oil and gas, is the marine area still going to be protected like a national park after being improved?
Mr. Lee: For oil and gas, it would. Let me just reflect on Tuktut Nogait. I appreciate that, ultimately, we did not find a solution that was acceptable to all the parties. We need to be more careful in the future to ensure there are no misunderstandings. There were some misunderstandings. That is always unfortunate, and we try to avoid them.
The Chairman: The committee will now move on to the next item of business, namely, clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-39.
Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clauses 2 to 27 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clauses 28 to 56 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clauses 57 to 67 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall Clause 68 to 104 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clauses 105 to 195 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Senator Adams: Mr. Chairman, are the people who are saying ``agreed'' only the members of this committee?
The Chairman: Yes. The only one who cannot vote is Senator Watt, but we have not reached that stage yet.
Shall clauses 196 to 271 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clauses 272 to 285 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Next are Schedules 1 and 2. Shall they carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Is it agreed that this bill be adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate as soon as possible?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Poulin: When are you reporting, Mr. Chair?
The Chairman: As soon as I can, probably today.
Senator Christensen: I had hoped that we would be able to have the minister back, because our last witnesses raised some questions that deserved answers. I am asking the minister to give me those answers so that I can address the issues in the third reading speech.
We were also asked, at the last hearing, to delay this for six months. However, as we have seen from the last bill that came to us, C-10, which is in its third reincarnation, delayed legislation stands in great danger of being lost on the Order Paper and then having to go back to square one. It is a very dangerous precedent to set. There was extensive advertising and discussion in the Yukon on the Yukon Act, yet only two witnesses requested to come before us. This provides a degree of comfort that this is seen as a good bill in the Yukon. I will be speaking at third reading to some of the concerns raised by the witnesses, and I wish to thank the committee for their review of this bill.
The Chairman: Thank you. As sponsor of the bill, those are good words to hear.
Senator Sibbeston: I am interested in knowing when our next meeting will be.
The Chairman: It will be next Tuesday afternoon at 5:30.
Senator Sibbeston: What will the subject be then?
The Chairman: The same thing. We will get a chance to hear more input, and the sponsor of the bill, Senator Banks, will be with us. He has not had a chance to ask any questions yet.
The committee adjourned.