Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 26 - Evidence - March 21, 2002
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 21, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C- 10, respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada; and Bill C-33, respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 9:32 a.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have had a number of hearings on Bill C-10, respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.
I would welcome Ms Christie Spence who is representing the Canadian Nature Federation. Please proceed.
Ms Christie Spence, Manager, Wildlands Campaign, Canadian Nature Federation: Thank you for this opportunity to make a presentation to your committee. I am a biologist who has worked for the Canadian Nature Federation for about three years. The Canadian Nature Federation is a national non-profit conservation organization with approximately 40,000 members and supporters. We receive support cheques from $5 and up. Our supporters are from right across the country.
We have a long history of being interested in marine conservation areas and of supporting efforts to designate such areas. In recent years, we have dedicated considerable resources to marine protection initiatives in Canada. In 1996, in partnership with the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, we published a document called "Seize the Day," which is a comprehensive discussion of strategies and tools required to realize a national marine conservation strategy in Canada. In that document we recognize the value of marine protected areas as an important conservation tool.
In 1997, CNF commented on Parks Canada's publication, "Charting the Course Towards a Marine Conservation Areas Act", wherein the Department of Canadian Heritage outlined legislative proposals for such an act. In 1999 and again in 2001, the Canadian Nature Federation presented to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage regarding this bill.
We have clear direction from our members to urge and indeed support the passage of the marine conservation area legislation and the establishment of effective marine protected areas.
Today, we will principally provide support for Bill C-10 and make some general comments about the need for this legislation.
The Canadian Nature Federation supports the creation of legislation to enable the establishment of national marine conservation areas in our waters. We should commend the Department of Canadian Heritage for its persistence in promoting a Canadian national marine conservation areas act. Passage of this bill is necessary. Currently, there is legislation and/or policy that permit the protection of marine species and marine areas. However, there is no existing mechanism that has the intent purpose of establishing a representative system of marine protected areas. It is necessary to have such a system if we do indeed want to conserve Canada's marine biodiversity.
In particular, we believe that the strongest elements of this proposed legislation include the affirmation of the importance of marine ecosystems in conserving global biodiversity; a strong commitment to consultation and inclusive decision making throughout the process of establishing and managing conservation areas; a commitment that, once established, marine conservation areas will not be reduced in size; emphasis on ecosystem management; the precautionary principle and the need for a representative system of marine conservation areas; the requirement for regular parliamentary reports on the state of the system, which is similar to what we have in the national parks system; and the recognition of providing opportunities for coastal communities to continue to utilize the ocean's resources.
We recognize that national marine conservation areas are not going to be the equivalent of terrestrial national parks, but we feel they are equally important in terms of conserving the range of Canada's habitats. Parks Canada's goal of representing each of the 29 natural marine regions will make a unique and much needed contribution to marine conservation.
Unfortunately the progress, in terms of actually establishing parks in this system, has been very slow. Canada's first marine park, Fathom Five, was established back in 1986. In 1988 a federal-provincial agreement was signed to establish Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, but in that agreement there was a commitment to also establish a marine component. As of now, no marine component has been officially established, there are no conservation measures in place in the water, and there are no resources allocated to do that.
In 1994 Parks Canada revised its principles and processes for establishing national marine conservation areas, allocating a whole chapter in their policies book, but since that time, only one new national marine conservation area has been established and that was Saguenay-St. Lawrence in 1997.
Progress is being made and we are close to getting some new areas. A proposed national marine conservation area is well within reach at Lake Superior. In November of this past year, Minister Copps announced that Parks Canada is now ready to enter negotiations to establish a federal-provincial agreement and an interim management plan for Lake Superior. There has been an impressive and extensive series of consultations to establish this area, and now there is widespread support for the establishment of Lake Superior.
We strongly support a timely establishment of NMCAs at Gwaii Haanas and at Lake Superior and in other places within the marine system. Passage of Bill C-10 will provide a much-needed framework for the establishment of new protected areas in Canada in the water. We hope that passage of this bill will act as a catalyst for significant progress towards completing the system.
In April 2001, the Minister of the Department of Canadian Heritage convened the first minister's round table on Parks Canada. This round table, for the first time, brought together diverse stakeholders from across the country to assess how well the agency is doing in meeting its mandate and to make recommendations for its future direction. The round table was focussing heavily on the completion of both the marine and the national park systems, and they made some recommendations specifically about the national marine conservation area system.
They recommended to the minister that she ensure that, by the end of the year 2001, Bill C-10 be passed; that she develop a strategy for advancing the completion of the national marine conservation area system; and that she set a clear goal of establishing four new national marine conservation areas within the next five years. The round table also recommended that the minister secure additional funding from the government to advance the completion of the NMCA system as well as the national terrestrial park system.
For any piece of new legislation to be effective, it must be implemented and enforced. Therefore, it requires the dedication of new funding. In considering Bill C-27, respecting the National Parks of Canada, this particular committee heard from several witnesses that Parks Canada lacks the financial resources to fulfil its mandate. New dedicated funds are required to meet government commitments to complete both the NMCA system and the national park system. We respectfully encourage this committee in its report to recommend that the government allocate adequate, stable funding for new national marine conservation areas as well as national parks.
This is something that the Canadian Nature Federation has long been concerned about. In working with the Green Budget Coalition, which is a coalition of about 15 national groups, we have recommended to the federal government that it allocate $165 million over the next five years to negotiate, create and operate four new marine conservation areas as well as eight new national parks.
To conclude, the Canadian Nature Federation respectfully recommends that this Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources report Bill C-10 without amendment and work to ensure that it receives Royal Assent in a timely manner; and furthermore, that it recommend to the government that it allocate new funds to support Parks Canada's mandate of establishing new national marine conservation areas, as well as the completion and restoration of our terrestrial park system.
Canada has long-standing commitments at the national and international level to complete a representative system of marine protected areas, and the passage of this bill is a crucial step towards that goal.
The Chairman: In the House of Commons committee, you recommended that there be a review every seven years, yet in the act it says every five years. Was that seven years a slip-up or did you feel that the government should not be doing it as frequently as every five years?
Ms Spence: Within, perhaps, five years after the passage of this first bill, it is probably a good thing to look at it as we work out the details and determine if these measures are operating properly. Beyond that, it may not be essential to review it so often. Whether it is every five years or every seven years is not a big deal for us.
The Chairman: It is not critical. I was wondering why you had made that suggestion. As a general rule, organizations who appear before us recommend that reviews be done sooner rather than later.
Ms Spence: We work on national parks. We are patient people.
The Chairman: Would you elaborate on where you see aquaculture farms fitting in? Does that take away from a park?
Ms Spence: When we made our presentations to the House committee, we were seeking to expand the list of prohibitions in the bill. We are happy with parts of this bill that deal with the protection of the structure, the function of the water column and the seabed. However, we understand the department is reluctant to expand that list of prohibitions, particularly when dealing with communities.
Our position on finfish aquaculture operations is that they pose a risk to the ecosystem. We have seen that on the West Coast, for example, with the escape of Atlantic salmon. That is of concern to us. In a marine conservation area, we would hope that, through zoning and consultation, we would be able to establish a fairly comprehensive list of things that would be de facto not permitted in an area. As to whether or not it is in the bill, that is up to the department.
The Chairman: I believe the term to describe something that can swim is ``finfish'' aquaculture. Am I wrong in my understanding that lobsters, mussels and clams are also farmed?
Ms Spence: You are quite correct. That is described as, ``shellfish'' aquaculture. In our submission to the House committee, we said we did not support finfish aquaculture but might consider shellfish aquaculture if it were was done in a controlled fashion. The science is still out on that. We would hope that, with this bill and with the emphasis on the precautionary principle, if there were some doubt as to negative effects of these activities, they would not be allowed in an MCA.
The Chairman: As I read the evidence, I can understand why finfish would be cause for concern because they could escape and move around. However, shellfish also must move a certain amount in the wild because they would be eaten if they did not. They are not like diamonds. They do not stay in one spot.
Ms Spence: They move very slowly.
The Chairman: Do you not think there is a risk of contamination?
Ms Spence: There may be. Again, that would depend on the practices. Some of the other concerns around finfish aquaculture, for example, are the use of antibiotics in the water and the fact that these species change their habits when they are in captivity. From not moving throughout the ecosystem, they become super resistant to things so that if they do escape and they are not in their natural habitat, they can out compete other species. We are aware of such concerns in the scientific community around these practices.
However, we are pleased to support this bill because it has provisions such as the precautionary principle and the need not to impair the structure and function of the ecosystem.
Senator Banks: We heard yesterday, and we have heard before, concern about the lack of consistency of the precautionary principle being applied across different statutes. The precautionary principle, as it is set out in this bill, differs from the one Canada agreed to internationally. What do you have to say to us about that?
Ms Spence: I am not a legal expert in the interpretation of the precautionary principle. I am a scientist. When we consider the government decisions that must be made, we recognize that there is always a need for certainty. If we cannot say with 100 per cent certainty that climate change will wipe out coastal communities across the country. Perhaps we need not worry about that. In the scientific community, we consider probabilities and risks associated with things.
Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the distinction between this definition and the other. As NMCAs are established, we would be looking to the scientific literature to determine whether there is a risk or whether there is some evidence — maybe not conclusive or overwhelming — that there are risks associated with certain behaviours. There is certainly little doubt about the damage bottom trawling causes. There is evidence that finfish aquaculture could be a problem. Hopefully, the precautionary principle would be used to avert any problems.
Senator Banks: According to what we read and hear, there are already problems with aquaculture. Senator Taylor has already raised that issue. Atlantic salmon are being farmed in the Pacific and some of them have escaped. As a result, antibiotics are in the water, and so on. What is your organization's view with respect to that fact generally? It is alarming some people. Furthermore, how would those questions relate to the establishment of a marine conservation area and the extent to which aquaculture might be allowed into one of the marine conservation zones?
Ms Spence: We are keen to have some legislation passed in this area because, relative to the terrestrial national park system, which does not cover a large area in this country, we have protected virtually none of our marine ecosystems. Hopefully, in a marine conservation area, we will be able to afford some degree of protection and do things differently in a sustainable, responsible manner versus what happens in the rest of the ocean, where we have few controls.
It is possible to avoid finfish aquaculture in a conservation area because the area has been set aside. One of the important functions of any protected area is to use it as a benchmark, a scientific yardstick, so that we can measure what we think is normal when we are changing everything outside of those areas.
Senator Banks: Perhaps, as a scientist, you could give me some advice. The movement of material in oceans is very much more difficult to control than the movement of material on land.
Ms Spence: It certainly is.
Senator Banks: If we mess up the ocean by introducing antibiotics or species that do not belong in a certain part of the ocean, what hope have we of preventing those things from spreading to another part of the ocean? Is it a forlorn hope that we can control that?
Ms Spence: It is very challenging to control what happens within an MCA. That is one reason we would want the precautionary principle to be used.
If there is finfish aquaculture outside the MCA but right up against it, there is the potential that if there were mishaps, it would affect the MCA.
We must look at what can be regulated or legislated within this area and try to have a better understanding of the precautionary principle and how we intend to use it.
Senator Banks: People are not running out and buying electric or hydrogen cell cars because they cannot be certain that those fuels will be reasonably convenient. Their efficiency is questionable. You might follow that analogy.
This is enabling legislation. This does not create anything. However, in the same sense that it would be silly to buy a vehicle that you were not certain you would be able to operate because there is no fuel, what is your reaction to the suggestion that has been made that we ought not really to pass this enabling legislation until we see that there is a commitment from the government to provide enough funds to actually carry this out? It is all very well to declare an area to be a national park or a marine conservation area, but there is some cost involved in that. Parks Canada does not have enough money now to do the things it needs to do and the things it has been charged to do properly. Would that be a good lever?
Ms Spence: I am at a loss in terms of knowing what the lever would be to get funding for Parks Canada at this stage. We are very close to establishing some NMCAs. Certainly, Gwaii Haanas is almost 20 years in coming in terms of establishing the marine component. It would not take a huge amount of new resources to get that going. At least, we would have a framework to start.
In Lake Superior, for example, there is tremendous support in the community for the establishment of that area, which again cannot happen until there is enabling legislation. There is support in these communities so perhaps that is a lever to enable government funds. I am not sure.
The people who are best placed to convince the government to allocate the funds to Parks Canada are those constituents out there who have a stake and who believe in these areas. Obviously, I cannot convince them.
Senator Banks: I welcome your second recommendation. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will attach an admonition that if we do this, it must be properly funded.
The Chairman: Seeing that you are the one charged with getting it through the house, I will charge you with ensuring that that message is delivered. I agree with you. We have a habit of creating parks and not making funds available.
I agree with the witness that you must declare the land and then give the money.
Senator Christensen: It is not always easy questioning a witness who totally agrees with what you are doing. In reading the presentation made by your association in the House of Commons, I thought you took a more strident position there. I see that you have stepped back from that. My questions originally were based on the presentation that you had made at the House of Commons committee.
Establishing parks in this day and age is a lot different from what it was when we were establishing Banff and other parks. Perhaps we would not have them today if we were dealing with today's realities.
People who live in coastal communities have a great deal of concern about the passage of this bill because, with the breakdown of the fishery industry, they want to find new forms of employment.
According to the evidence we heard from witnesses from the department, an extensive consultative process will take place after an area has been identified and researched. If the communities decide that they do not want it, then, perhaps, it will go no further.
From your association's point of view, what is the best way to approach these communities and try to alleviate their fears so that the parks can be established? It is important, as you pointed out, that we do preserve these areas for future generations.
Ms Spence: Sometimes I bemoan the fact that you cannot draw a line on a map and establish a park. It takes decades, and certainly, does require community support.
In the time that I have been doing this work, I have seen a real commitment from Parks Canada to be inclusive in their consultations, to be open and fair. Parks Canada has walked away from communities such as Bona Vista Bay, where there was no interest.
However, Lake Superior is a very encouraging example. When Parks Canada first approached the communities around Lake Superior about an MCA, there was rabid opposition to the proposal. Now, I believe there is 80 per cent public support. They have done an excellent job in getting the community onside.
There is now very good evidence of the benefits of establishing marine conservation areas in the Caribbean and off the coast of Florida. They have noticed a huge increase in fish numbers, not only inside MCAs, but also outside.
Setting some areas aside does benefit commercial fisheries outside commercial conservation areas. As more examples come forward, it will be much easier to demonstrate the benefits.
For communities that have lost their main source of income from fishing, this provides a totally different perspective on how to generate economic benefits from the ocean through eco-tourism with people coming from all over the world to experience the area as opposed to just intensively focussing on one species or another.
Senator Christensen: They see it as the withdrawal of undersea lands for gas and oil exploration.
Ms Spence: It is another option that is available to communities. It is one that will hopefully preserve that resource over time, whereas with other exploitative resources there may be a period of time where that provides a benefit and then not. We see that with mining or forestry communities that lost their resource and then they benefited for a short period. I am quite confident that certain communities will find this very attractive.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms Spence, for a most informative and interesting presentation. I cannot guarantee it, but I think your wishes will probably be fulfilled. It looks like we are headed in the right direction.
The committee will now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33 which was passed by the House of Commons in November of last year. Although this has been referred to as the Nunavut Water Act, the full title of the bill is Bill C-33, respecting the water resources of Nunavut and the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Owing to the work done by Senators Watt and Sibbeston we have brokered an amendment on a clause that had bothered all of us. The Aboriginal people did not like the non-derogation clause. Senator Sibbeston will be moving, when I come to clause 3 on page 4, the deletion of lines 1 to 7. In other words, we will delete the non-derogation clause. I will be asking Senator Sibbeston to move the motion at that time.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Watt: May I raise one issue? In clause 82, which deals with the use of water to deposit waste in water under a licence, there is a licence fee. How shall we handle that licence fee if the land is under the ownership of the Inuit? Should we be proposing an amendment to that clause?
The Chairman: We did talk about that, but everything in politics is a trade-off, and we felt that, if we dealt with the non-derogation clause, that would be at least half a loaf. That still bothers us, but it is one thing to get a department to retreat a bit, and quite another to get it to retreat a lot. I think the department will retreat because, after we amend the bill, it must go back to the House. The one amendment we are talking about, which Senator Sibbeston will move, will be as much as the House will accept this time around.
Senator Watt: Should we at least make a statement at the end to the effect that this is an outstanding issue?
The Chairman: I do not see anything wrong with a statement at the end.
Senator Sibbeston, would you care to add anything?
Senator Sibbeston: As you stated, Mr. Chairman, initially, we were concerned about three areas. One was the issue of water licences, and another was the minister's veto power with respect to authorizing decisions that the water board would make, the minister's veto over them. On the whole issue of Aboriginal rights, my impression was that the non- derogation clause was certainly the most significant matter that the Inuit people and their representatives raised. Therefore, I focused on that with a view to trying to resolve that issue. I believe we have a resolution. I think it would have been best had the clause been amended as I suggested, but it seems as if the government and the minister are not prepared to go that far. It is second best to simply delete the clause. It satisfies the Inuit people. This is the course that I think we are about to take. I have an amendment that will delete the non-derogation clause in the interests of providing clarity.
The Chairman: We seem to have issues brokered in this way. We have at least half or maybe even three-quarters of a loaf.
Senator Watt: I want to make a statement on issues that remain outstanding.
The Chairman: I will hear you after we have concluded this matter.
We agreed to stand the title. Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Senator Banks: No.
The Chairman: Then we will accept a motion in amendment. Has that been circulated?
Senator Christensen: Yes.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-33, in clause 3, page 4, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 7.
The Chairman: All those in favour please say yea? All those against please say nay?
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The motion is unanimously carried.
Shall clause 3, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 4 to 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 14 to 41 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 42 to 81 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 82 to 94 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 95 to 132 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 133 to 170 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clauses 171 to 203 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 and schedule 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We will work on an observation, which we will prepare in a few minutes. Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I thank honourable senators. We will now continue in camera.
The committee continued in camera.