Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 29 - Evidence, April 30, 2002
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 30, 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-27, respecting the long-term management of nuclear fuel waste, met this day at 5:40 p.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome, witnesses. We are pleased at the number of you who could get together with us, especially since you are coming from different areas such as Terrace, Telkwa, Smithers, Kitimat and Port Edward. I know Kitimat and Terrace fairly well. Many years ago, I was a surface geologist in the Chilcotin country to the south of you.
Ms Betty J. Barton, President, Terrace and District Chamber of Commerce: Thank you for giving us this opportunity this afternoon. I am here representing the City of Terrace. The chamber has almost 400 members and the City of Terrace and Thornhill has a population of 21,000.
Our community traditionally survives on the forestry and fishing industries, both of which are currently sagging, to put it mildly. We are concerned that the potential future resource development of Northwestern British Columbia marine areas could be severely limited by Bill C-10. That is why we are here to talk about this today.
The passing of this proposed legislation could drastically restrict our fisheries' catch levels, fish farms, municipal tourism, shipping levels and oil and gas exploration.
One of the issues concerns clauses 5 and 16 of the bill. It is understood that a marine conservation area can be established or enlarged by the Governor in Council, but it cannot be reduced or removed by the same method. We feel that such powers should not be given to cabinet, but rather to the provincial and local government bodies, and affected communities should have input into this process.
Last weekend's Vancouver Sun said that this proposed legislation is one example of municipal politicians having been left with the job of creating a liveable environment but without the tools to do it.
This is another example of people in the East making a decision that will adversely affect our lives in Northwestern B.C.
Consultation with Parks Canada on this bill has been less than adequate. If this committee process had not gone on, the continuation of consultations looked doubtful. We would like to bring that to the attention of the committee.
We recommend that the method and procedures for implementing the marine conservation areas bill be revised to include input from municipalities and affected community, Aboriginal and industry groups. We certainly understand that you are attempting to do this at this stage through this videoconference, but we do not feel it is sufficient. We recommend that an act of Parliament be required for any changes to marine conservation areas.
We feel strongly that clause 13 of the bill should be removed. This outright prohibition on any mineral exploration or extraction in marine conservation areas is of great concern in economically depressed Northwestern British Columbia. We who live in the area want to protect our environment. At the same time, we need to expand our economic base. We will feel that there are enough watchdogs — that is, provincial, federal, private and environmental organizations — to oversee oil exploration and extraction or any other economic endeavour in our marine waters. There have also been many successful and environmentally friendly oil explorations and wells developed, as I am sure everyone knows, in the North Sea with Hibernia, and Terra Nova, Newfoundland. Remedies have been found for the past environmental concerns about this industry.
We feel that we must strive for balance and flexibility between the economic and recreational use of our marine environment. We are hopeful that Bill C-10 can be amended or revised in order to provide that.
I will pass it on to Ms Groves, from Smithers.
Ms Jo Ann Groves, Councillor, Town of Smithers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, for this opportunity to address you on Bill C-10. Although the Town of Smithers is located several hundred kilometres inland of the coast of Northern British Columbia, I wish to express our concern regarding Bill C-10's implications for Northern British Columbia from our perspective.
It is our position that the bill as it is written will have a detrimental impact on our already depressed economy here in Northwest British Columbia, from both an economic and environmental standpoint.
We are concerned about Bill C-10's duplication of the Oceans Act legislation. We do not need another piece of legislation and another level of oceanic bureaucracy when we can just amend the Oceans Act to allow the establishment and management of the marine conservation areas. Our interpretation is that marine conservation areas, interpreted in the Oceans Act as ``marine protected areas,'' can be established under that act.
Rather than bring forward new legislation, it is recommended that the committee consider making amendments to the Oceans Act for management of the MCAs by Fisheries and Oceans and Parks Canada. Failing this, we agree with Ms Barton from Terrace that clauses 15 and 16 need to be amended and 13 preferably removed.
We propose that the preamble term ``precautionary principle'' be changed to ``precautionary approach,'' consistent with the preamble of the Oceans Act. Precautionary approach may not be as strong, but it is just as broad and certainly portrays the intent of the legislation. ``Precautionary principle,'' on the other hand, is too strong and portrays the bill as rigid and inflexible when the intent is to allow those communities who are directly affected to have input on how best to manage their MCA in consultation with governments and other interested parties.
In conclusion, we must strive for a balance between protection and use of the environment that must take into account the interests of all parties that depend on or have an interest in the ocean environment. On behalf of the Town of Smithers, I urge you to give considerable reconsideration to these issues and the unnecessary oceanic bureaucracy you are proposing to create. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. You were crisp and to the point.
Ms Sharon L. Hartwell, Mayor, Corporation of the Village of Telkwa: Mr. Chairman and senators, I would like to thank you for giving us this short time to again present the views of our community. I am struggling with this issue because it is so important to all our communities, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. To repeat what was said previously, we are suffering in B.C. and especially in the North. We are still waiting for action concerning softwood lumber and are trying desperately to save the forests from the pine beetle. Businesses are closing and bankruptcies are climbing.
We in Northern British Columbia are looking for economic opportunities to strengthen our communities, not put more restrictions on them. Is the federal government willing to pay compensation to the communities for lost revenue so that we may move forward in other areas? British Columbia already has the largest park areas.
We had a presentation at our regional district meeting in October 2001 from a Parks Canada representative, who told us this was not to be considered consultation. He also said that people felt that they had not been adequately consulted. With an issue of this importance, I feel strongly that 10 minutes is not adequate time to give you enough information. I ask again: Come up to the communities and see how we live.
The heritage issues vary from province to province. Why does the federal government feel that we will not do what is right to protect our heritage in British Columbia? I have concerns that people in B.C. are not getting the same level of opportunity for consultation as others. We all have a vested interest in this resource and need to be given equal opportunity to be heard.
Given the time constraints, we have chosen to break our presentations to deal with the different clauses. I support the ones that have already been presented, so I will move on to subclause 7(2). As proposed in Bill C-10, the committee may report back to the House if it disapproves. There is no allowance for reporting if it does approve of the amendment. In order to ensure that the committee deals with the tabled amendment to a marine conservation area, the wording under clause 7 needs to be strengthened.
The appointed committee must be required to report back to the House, whether it approves or disapproves of the amendment. It is unlikely that the members on any standing committee from the government benches will disapprove of a report from their own minister. By requiring the report to be brought back to the House, whether the committee approves or disapproves of the amendment, the rationale behind the committee's recommendation will be open for fair debate in Parliament.
As for subclause 7(3), one cannot foresee the future, and the restriction to three hours for debating is extremely stringent and does not take into consideration the possible complexity of issues concerning marine conservation areas. Telkwa feels strongly that this clause should be eliminated entirely to allow for the amount of time required to deal with the matter placed before the House.
Under clause 9, management plans for marine conservation areas are not required until five years following their establishment. This is ludicrous. Telkwa feels strongly that a management plan should be in place prior to the establishment of a marine conservation area so that the minister and everyone involved understands how that will happen. The Federal Business Development Bank requires a business development plan prior to lending money for a business; why would we prohibit access to an entire marine area before a management plan is in place?
Also, subclause 9(2) allows for five years between reviews of management plans. Telkwa believes this time frame is excessive and that the maximum should be no longer than three years. Each management plan should be considered on an individual basis, as it relates to a unique marine conservation area, but the maximum time between reviews should be no more than three years. Five years is an exceptionally long time if the management plan is not working.
Clause 13 states that, ``No person shall explore or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregate or any other inorganic manner within a marine conservation area.'' The bill further states that, once established, a marine conservation area will exist in perpetuity. This clause must be removed.
First, it fails to take into account that the purpose behind the establishment of each marine conservation area is unique. It is possible that mineral exploration and extraction may be able to coexist in a given marine conservation area without damaging the very purpose for the marine conservation area's existence. Each marine conservation area and proposed development should be investigated on a case-by-case basis in order to determine if a balance can be struck between use and protection of the natural environment. Furthermore, the prohibition of mineral exploration and extraction infringes on the province's right to use its mineral and internal waterway resources.
Under clause 21, giving a marine conservation officer the power to arrest a person without a warrant, based on the belief that they may commit a crime, is simply an infringement of personal rights. This is excessive and should be omitted. Finally, clause 22 provides the marine conservation area wardens with the power to enter onto private property without a warrant. Telkwa feels strongly that this power is excessive and infringes on the personal privacy rights of citizens.
With this much opposition to Bill C-10, I trust the principles of democracy in which Canada is rooted will stand and the committee will amend Bill C-10 to reflect the needs of Canadians as expressed.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Hartwell. You mentioned early on that you were wondering about the committee getting out to British Columbia. This bill covers not only British Columbia, but also the Maritime provinces on the East Coast, Labrador and the High Arctic. It also covers lakes such Lake Superior, the Great Lakes and Great Slave Lake. Much as we would have liked to visit every place where a park might be developed, we had to trim our sails to meet our budget.
Ms Joanne Monaghan, Vice Chairman, Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine: Honourable senators, thank you for hearing our presentations this afternoon. First, allow me to say that the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine covers a land area of 100,000 square kilometres in Northwestern B.C. and has a population of 44,000. Communities large and small are situated along the regional district's extensive length of coastline. Each coastal community, in its own way, is reliant upon marine resources to provide a livelihood for its residents or upon a marine waterway for the movement of goods.
The economy of the Kitimat-Stikine region is highly dependent upon the extraction and processing of natural resources, including marine resources. As local government representatives for these communities, the board of the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine is very concerned about maintaining the viability of our resource sectors and ensuring that future opportunities such as offshore oil and natural gas or aquaculture are not constrained by government policy. For these reasons, the Kitimat-Stikine regional district registers its concerns with Bill C-10.
At present, our area is hurting badly. I do not know if honourable senators are aware that we have lost thousands of jobs in our regional district because of the softwood lumber issue.
We must diversify, and aquaculture is one means. The entire coastline is dotted with applications for tenure for fish farm site investigations. North coast communities are therefore very concerned that adoption of Bill C-10 will preclude aquaculture development, restrict access and discourage risk capital.
The second industry looming on the horizon for the northern half of coastal British Columbia is off-shore petroleum exploration and development. Resource evaluations demonstrate the possibility of greater activity than that of the Hibernia development on Canada's Atlantic coast. Again, federal government policy can support this economic transition, or it can circumscribe it by limiting access to resources. We must not be limited.
There are other, unknown resources. For example, sea animals and plants in the coastal British Columbia region may be the foundation of new industries to supply highly valued products to a global marketplace demanding food, food components and pharmaceuticals.
We must have input on all of these issues. Three minutes is good, but we need a lot more. We have many concerns. I know honourable senators have said that they travel all over Canada. Yes, you do. However, we really would like to invite you again to come out to our area and see our concerns for yourself.
The next issue I have with Bill C-10 is that it reveals little about the location and size of proposed marine conservation areas. I understand these schedules will accompany the bill; however, we do not know where they are. We have not seen any maps. As honourable senators are aware, the Government of British Columbia proposed making 12 per cent of our land base into protected areas. Are these overlapping? Does an equivalent ecosystem classification system exist for the British Columbia marine environment? Has Parliament declared an objective for the area extent of marine protected areas? How can one support this proposed legislation without knowing the size and location of proposed marine conservation areas or reserves?
In closing, let me say that Bill C-10 causes grave concern because it can seriously affect the economy of the region by restricting access to coastal areas and submarine resources. It is an area that is already hurting badly. Bill C-10 presents another threat to our traditional economic sectors. B.C. is already suffering from poor commodity prices, and the marine conservation area bill also seems poised to prevent new opportunities from being realized in such sectors as aquaculture and petroleum development.
Finally, the regional district is concerned that this bill will unnecessarily restrict access for recreation and economic uses during a lengthy period of land claim negotiations. The regional district is disturbed that this policy is contained within a bill written for the commendable purpose of protecting the environment.
Mr. Ed Wampler, Mayor, District of Port Edward: Honourable senators, I agree with everything that has been said so far. I wanted to mention some of those things, but I do not want to sound like a broken record and repeat what has already been said.
I also have my concerns about clauses 5, 16 and especially clause 13. Another concern I have, and I know this has been talked about, is that no amendment was made to the Oceans Act for the protection of the MCAs.
There is one other area that is of great concern to me. I do not know if honourable senators are aware of it, but B.C. is developing an LRMP, or land and resource management plan, that covers the land, and you are discussing Bill C-10, which covers the marine area. Is there any conflict between those two pieces of proposed legislation?
My colleagues have already stated what else I was planning to say.
Mr. Bill Beldesi, Chair, Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District: Honourable senators, like my colleagues, I should like to thank members of the committee for taking the time to hear us today.
The Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District includes the area where I live, the Queen Charlotte Islands, the City of Prince Rupert, the District of Port Edward and surrounding areas.
One of the things we all share is our connection with and proximity to the ocean. We depend on it for travel, work and play, and some of us even live on it.
The Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District joins with all the Northwest Coast communities in opposing Bill C- 10. We do so because we are convinced that this bill will be unnecessarily restrictive legislation negatively affecting our ability to pursue our chosen occupations and lifestyle.
We thank honourable senators for this discussion, for giving us this last-ditch opportunity. Our effort to have members of the House of Commons come to the North and talk to the people who will be most affected were unsuccessful. To be frank, your intervention is our last hope.
History has not been kind to rural communities, particularly on the coast of British Columbia, when faced with Parks Canada's creation of national parks, and we are doubly concerned with Bill C-10's plan to create 29 marine parks.
I have been a resident of this region for several years, and I note that the issue of Gwaii Haanas park is still unresolved, as far as the people who live here are concerned.
As for the consultation about Bill C-10, there has not been a clearly defined process or criteria for people to follow. It certainly did not include the real stakeholders who should have been participating in proceedings on Bill C-10: the fishers, the First Nations and local government, to name a few. If that is what consultation is, then all we can say that it has missed the mark by a mile.
I should like to re-emphasize the overlap in the proposed legislation. We believe that Bill C-10 is creating an additional level of bureaucracy for developing the marine conservation areas. The 1997 Oceans Act already allows the minister to implement marine protected areas, if he or she deems it necessary.
Another item that has been missed is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does have a workable stakeholders group. They come to decisions based on consensus. How are Bill C-10's rulings going to fit with these hard-earned decisions? My guess is that they will not.
The overlapping responsibilities between Heritage and DFO will include areas such as fishing, aquaculture, marine navigation and safety. What does that equal? In our opinion, that equals inefficient use of manpower and tremendous waste of taxpayers' dollars.
As was mentioned previously, as a result of the continuing poor economic climate in the northwest part of British Columbia, we are seeing communities in a last-ditch struggle to survive. We do not need more restrictive legislation such as that proposed by Bill C-10 that will either eliminate or escalate the expense of future economic development, whether it be gas and oil, electrical generation by marine-based wind farms, the laying of underwater transmission lines or pipelines, increased aquacultural opportunities, or possible mineral exploration.
In closing, please consider this proposed legislation carefully, honourable senators, and oppose Bill C-10. Thank you very much.
Mr. Robert Corless, Deputy Mayor, District of Kitimat: Honourable senators, our council is certainly used to dealing with environmental issues and is witness to how industry deals with them. In our community, we have Alcan, Eurochem and Methanex.
We believe that this bill is based on policy direction set by Parks Canada in the 1980s and is designed to serve international quotas rather than present and future Canadian needs. Simply put, we view the bill as based on outdated suppositions and international ideals. Bill C-10 just is not required.
Canada does not need blanket restrictions on everything to preserve values. We need regulations for specific areas of interest. We now have regulatory authority to manage individual resources.
Our marine environment is assured scrutiny, due diligence and, ultimately, protection under numerous authorities, including the Oceans Act, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans — which can establish marine protected areas — the Canadian Wildlife Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Environment Canada can establish national wildlife areas or marine wildlife areas under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The CEAA process, with all its marine- and ecosystem-based triggers, when combined with British Columbia's environmental legislation, leads the world with the most comprehensive custodial measures to ensure environmental sustainability.
Regardless of the implications of today's decisions for generations 50 to 100 years from now, once a marine conservation area is described and set down under Schedule I, it can never be removed or reduced without a change to the act. This is an excessive use of government power.
The term ``precautionary principle'' is not consistent with other federal legislation dealing with the marine environment. To be consistent with the Oceans Act, the term should be ``precautionary approach.''
We believe that this bill is not necessary. The East Coast oil industry has proven itself to be conscientious in its exploration and production activities. Our industries have proven that they conduct due diligence with respect to the environment, and we support industry in that regard.
Senator Banks: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for taking the time to explain your views.
Rather than asking specific questions, I will try to answer some of your concerns with a broad approach, if I may.
The Chairman: Senator Banks has been given the responsibility of piloting this proposed legislation through the House. He is a government point man, in other words. He is the one you will want to impress.
Senator Banks: It is the chair we want to impress, I promise you.
The chair is correct. I am the ``sponsor,'' as it is called, of this bill in the Senate.
I hope that you will come to understand that you are worried about some things that you do not yet need to be worried about. This bill does not create any marine conservation areas. It sets up the framework and the process by which marine conservation areas may or can or will be established.
When Bill C-10 passes, and I think it will, it says, in effect, ``Here are the rules and the steps we must take in order for a marine conservation area to be established.'' I refer you to clause 7 of the bill. That is where the consultation you are requesting should take place. It is stated there that both Houses of Parliament — and that means either of them, not together — on examining the recommendations of the government to establish a marine conservation area, have the right, without giving anyone a reason, to simply say, ``We are not going to do this, and that is the end of that.''
I want you to keep in mind that this is proposed framework legislation. It does not establish any MCAs. However, it clearly indicates an intention that some will be established. I believe the consultations must be undertaken, as has been said, in the following context: Exactly where are these going to be, exactly what water and ground do they cover, and exactly how big are they? Those questions are not in this bill. They will come up under clause 7.
They will also come up in the management plan to which you have also referred. This bill requires those management plans to be put into place after mandatory consultation with the affected coastal communities. I can assure you, on the basis not merely of undertakings but of historical fact, that when the department speaks with people in an area and finds that they do not want there to be a marine conservation area, then that is the end of it. It does not happen. That is demonstrable, because that has already happened. A proposal was made in a certain part of Canada, the communities that were going to be affected by it said ``no,'' and that was the end of it. It will not happen.
There are a number of protections for communities. First, there is that undertaking. Second, when the department actually decides that, ``Here is where we want that MCA to be,'' that is when we will be able to consult with you. That is when we will be able to get specific and you will be able to say, ``We ought not do that there.''
It is true that once a marine conservation area is established, then if subsequent to that, oil or gold or whatever is found beneath the seabed, it will not be possible to extract it.
However, it is also the case that in instances where provable, practical means of recovery of those resources exist, it will simply not be considered as a marine conservation area.
I do not think that either House of Parliament would permit the establishment of a marine conservation area, or MCA, where there are provable oil reserves in which anyone demonstrates an interest.
I have one additional point to make in respect of oceans and marine protected areas. Marine conservation areas and marine protected areas are fundamentally different. In marine protected areas — and the department will confirm this — DFO has no intention of applying sustainable development.
I will be parenthetical here. In every marine conservation area, there will be at least two, and probably more, kinds of areas. One will be an area for which there is a high level of protection. The second will be an area in which, by definition, there is a high level of sustainable development that will include aquaculture, fishing and many other things. A marine protected area is not the same thing as a marine conservation area. They are totally different conservation tools. Marine protected areas, which are implemented by DFO, are small areas with high protection of key features, such as spawning grounds. A marine conservation area is not so much a national park as it is an area of conscious management, including sustainable, long-term business operations. Those are two different and, we believe, complementary tools. I hope that I will have a chance to both answer and ask more questions afterward. I will now defer to others on the committee.
The Chairman: It is quite clear in the bill that there is no oil or gas exploration. You say it could still be worked. Yet clause 13 states: ``No person shall explore for or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any other inorganic matter within a marine conservation area.''
In other words, it sounds like the bill puts a freeze on an area that could be quite vast. How do you respond to that?
Senator Banks: Once the MCA is established, you cannot do any more exploration, drilling or mining.
The Chairman: That is the second one. How will the consultation process work? Does that mean one or two phone calls from Ottawa to friends in Kitimat and that is all?
Senator Banks: That is a good question. I can answer that by saying that there are existing examples of consultations that have already taken place measured in years and many months. They have not been cursory or superficial. One or two phone calls did not constitute a consultation.
Again, the consultation process was spread over two years. At the outset, there were serious reservations on the part of the coastal communities. As a result of those reservations, nothing was done. Gradually, over time, the people began to look at the other side of the ledger. We also must be careful to look at the other side of the ledger. It turns out that those affected communities have now begun to ask if they can have another look at this because they think it might be advantageous to them.
I would hope that when those consultations take place, you will take into account the issues and information on the other side of the ledger, such as the potential advantages of development of an MCA, particularly for tourism.
Ms Hartwell: If you are saying that we have the right to turn a proposal down, why are we proceeding with this bill at this time?
Senator Banks: Without this bill, no such thing could even be proposed to you.
Ms Hartwell: We do not want it.
Senator Banks: You do not know that yet.
Ms Hartwell: With all due respect, being a woman, I do know that.
If you say you can have conservation areas and some areas in which you can drill —
Senator Banks: I am sorry, I do not want to interrupt you, but I did not say that there was an area in which you could drill. There will be no area within an MCA in which you can drill for oil.
Ms Hartwell: Period.
Senator Banks: Period. There will be at least two, and in some cases likely more, areas of the MCA that will be more highly protected and in which certain kinds of businesses will not be allowed to operate. Then there will be another area of the MCA in which it is presumed that things like aquaculture, fishing, tourism development and the like will be not only permitted, but encouraged.
Ms Hartwell: There will be activities such as tourism, but nothing else. If we do not have a marine conservation area and drilling takes place, it is my understanding that any and all royalties will go directly to the federal government and the province will not participate. Is that correct?
Senator Banks: All offshore mineral royalties of any kind belong to the Government of Canada. However, although it is not the case in British Columbia yet because of the moratorium, the practice thus far in the Atlantic has been for the Government of Canada to say that all royalties payable for oil extracted in the offshore areas will be given to the provinces, with a corresponding reduction in equalization payments.
The Chairman: The offshore area issue is complicated by the lack of a land claims settlement with the Aboriginal peoples. Before exploration for oil proceeds, there must be a deal between the federal and provincial governments and Aboriginal people in respect of sharing the rewards. The federal government will manage the exploration, but that entire agreement must be worked out first. For instance, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador took about three or four years to work it out.
Ms Hartwell: We received correspondence between Mr. Jones and the chairman. I am concerned about what areas would be included. I agree that a clause does provide for consultation. There is a different level of consultation required for First Nations and other interests. I am suggesting that that is not fair or appropriate.
The Chairman: I am not sure whether you said it was fair to consult the First Nations or unfair.
Ms Hartwell: I am saying that we should all have a level playing field. Every party should be consulted on an equal basis. They are suggesting that some will be treated differently and I do not think that is fair. That was my comment.
The Chairman: I do not think the municipality will be invited, considering the way things have gone in the past. It will be the provincial government, the federal government and the First Nations sitting down together to determine how it will be worked out.
Municipalities are the creations of the province. Whether the province wants to bring you into the actual nitty- gritty, day-to-day process will be up to them.
The federal government cannot order the province to invite you, nor can we invite you if the province does not want you there. That is the sticking point.
Mr. Beldesi: I live in the Queen Charlotte Islands, where recently the Haida have reached out with open arms to local government, asking them to take part in all of the planning, the LRMP, as well as the negotiations. Keep your heads up. This may be a pattern that other areas of British Columbia will decide to follow
Ms Monaghan: I hear that the federal government, the provincial government and, in our area, the Aboriginal governments are sitting down together. I want to emphasize that the municipalities are also an order of government, the only one that has to balance its budgets. Yet, many times we are excluded. I am the immediate past president of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities and I can tell you that we have been working for a very long time on not only that issue, but also on Bill C-10 and how it affects our areas.
I would like to speak to the Aboriginal issue. You talked about exploration for oil and you mentioned spawning grounds, which is of interest to me. While this proposed legislation is entitled ``An Act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada'' and obviously has very desirable purposes, it may severely encumber use of the vast coastal areas during our land claims negotiation process of indeterminate years. In the Kitimat-Stikine Aboriginal district, we are negotiating with nine bands. The Nisga'a have settled after 100 years, and that is in our immediate territory.
Some constraints on the use of lands and resources during land claims negotiations are acceptable, but prohibiting access to current users or effectively withdrawing extensive areas of B.C. coast from economic use is not, and if the latter is the intention of the federal government, it should not be presented in the guise of conservation legislation.
The Chairman: Senator Christensen has a question. She is very familiar with land claims adjustments because the Yukon government had a problem similar to that which B.C. is just getting to.
Senator Christensen: In Yukon, 14 different bands have been negotiating. Twelve of them have completed the process and the other two are at the point of ratification.
While the land claims issue is very germane to any issue of development in any part of the country, in this particular case, we are looking at proposed legislation with which you obviously have some major concerns. There seems to be a high degree of uniformity in the views that you have put forward.
Are the views you have put forward consistent across all of Northern British Columbia? Are all the communities of which you are aware of the same mind as you?
Ms Monaghan: Yes, and my fellow reporters are also of the same mind.
Senator Christensen: All communities?
Ms Monaghan: Yes.
Senator Christensen: As Senator Banks has pointed out, this proposed legislation is not implementing parks; it allows MCAs to be implemented once the consultation process has been taken care of.
When department officials appeared before us on this bill, we raised with them the issues you raised with regard to B.C. As has been pointed out, this proposed legislation in national in scope. A number of regions have been identified where Canada believes that in the long term, reserves should be established. We pushed the department very hard on this point. In all cases we were told that, as happened in Newfoundland, if after the consultation process the communities do not want to proceed, no MCA will be established.
In 10 or 15 years, perhaps they may want to reconsider. After the exploration has been done, and if no minerals, oil or gas are found, the people may see an economic benefit from tourism. The matter could be revisited at that time. That is the information and assurance we received from the department when reviewing this bill.
I want to be 100 per cent sure that all the communities within the northern region are expressing the same concerns as you.
Ms Monaghan: Yes, we are. You may be aware that various groups are currently claiming 110 per cent of B.C. We have some extra land in the North, whereas in the South they do not. They will have to settle with money. We do not want all our lands tied up in the North because the Aboriginal people will be including some of them in their land claims. We want those lands to be free so that this can happen, and to be fair to them as well.
We are very concerned about this.
The Chairman: You said that you are all of the same mind and that you all want to ensure that offshore development takes place. A few of your Vancouver columns have travelled over the Rocky Mountains and I have read them. They seem to be concerned that settlements would want development at the expense of a pristine environment, tourism, fishing and all of that. Do you feel strongly that development can take place at the same time as tourism and fishing?
Ms Monaghan: If it cannot, we are certainly not as far advanced as they say we are. We have technology that can get us to the moon, so if we cannot do that, there is something very wrong. I can tell you that a columnist who writes in a Vancouver newspaper has probably never been up here. They do not understand the issue. We are 1,000 road miles from them. They listen to hearsay. They look at a map and say, ``This is pristine and we want to keep it that way.'' They do not give a hang how we make a living up here. I have lived up here for 30 years and I know what those columnists are like.
Ms Groves: I have here a column that was in a Vancouver paper on Saturday. It deals with the 2001 census information that is being released. It is very important that you understand that the communities in the Northwest are losing population. We need to encourage development and economic growth. Families and young people are leaving.
This newspaper editorial says that the census is a map of the past that helps us understand the future. Two clear trends emerge: First, many regions of the province face future decline unless trends change. Across the North, some of the interior resource communities are sliding toward ghost town status. Mackenzie, which is north of Prince George, lost one in eight residents over the past five years, one of the starkest declines in Canada, as the forest industry shrank.
The article goes on to say that the second trend is that growth is concentrated in urban areas, especially in the Greater Vancouver region. B.C.'s population grew by 183,000 over the past five years — 85 per cent of that was in the Greater Vancouver area. This is a national trend. More than half the population of Canada now lives in the Montreal area, Southern Ontario, the Edmonton-Calgary corridor, Greater Vancouver and South Vancouver Island. Many experts expect those two trends to accelerate.
They see a continuing shift from resource work to the knowledge-based and service jobs concentrated in the urban areas. The challenge now is to find ways to preserve and renew the richness of life based in rural and small communities, while at the same time adapt our institutions, government and infrastructures for life in a very different British Columbia.
The Chairman: You sound like you might have prepared that one. That is fine. I am glad to see the qualifications of expert columnists in Vancouver who stay in the city and do not know what they are talking about are the same as everywhere else in Canada.
Senator Keon: You are obviously deeply concerned that you could well be sitting on some resources that could enrich your area, and this proposed legislation could interfere with the possibility of exploration and so forth.
I suspect there is not much chance that this bill will not go ahead. It seems to me that clause 16 and clause 13 frighten you most, and to a lesser degree, clause 5. You seem to be united when it comes to clauses 16 and 13.
How far along are you with your surveys of what is up there in the way of petroleum and mineral resources? I would think if you had reasonable expectations, certainly the government would back off from imposing an MCA on you.
Ms Monaghan: I can enlighten you on that. Some oil companies conducted explorations in the area that we are talking about in 1958. They came up with huge quantities of oil. They said that the field would be bigger by far than Hibernia. That tells you will something. It could certainly lead to a great deal of economic development that we need so badly in our area.
Ms Hartwell: Ms Monaghan, correct me if I am wrong, but were they not prepared to go ahead with offshore oil and gas before the NDP government was elected?
Ms Monaghan: They have already done some, but could not do more.
Ms Hartwell: We know resources are there.
Ms Monaghan: We know resources are there. They have done the drilling, but when the previous government came in, they instituted the moratorium.
Senator Keon: Are you talking about your last provincial government?
Ms Monaghan: Yes, the NDP government.
Senator Keon: Is there any hope that that will be lifted now?
Ms Monaghan: We certainly feel that there is some hope, yes. We are thinking probably as early as next Friday.
Senator Keon: What could we do with clauses 13 and 16 that would make you more comfortable?
Ms Monaghan: I do not have them in front of me.
Ms Barton: We would like you to get rid of clause 13 altogether because we feel it is an outright prohibition on any mineral exploration or extraction. We would like you to get rid of Bill C-10 altogether. However, if you are not going to do that and it will go through anyway, you could get rid of clause 13. At least then, we would have the opportunity in the future to go through the consultation process, find out if people in the area want exploration, get the oil companies here and, hopefully, have a booming economy.
My concern about any of this going through is that the consultation process in the Northwest to date has been minimal, and once Bill C-10 is in place, how much more consultation will take place before these MCAs are established wherever they are asked for along the coast? Consultation is an uncertain thing from what we have seen to date, either with Parks Canada, our local municipalities, the regional districts, the provincial government or anyone who has a stake in this.
Ms Hartwell: It seems to be ``last minute'' for us. Can this not be a province-by-province issue? Do we have to do it all in one encompassing piece of legislation?
The Chairman: I will leave that to Senator Banks.
Senator Banks: Yes. This is a national bill. It has to apply to the respective waters in all of Canada.
Ms Hartwell: Why?
Senator Banks: Because this is the Government of Canada and that is how things operate. We have national parks in Newfoundland, British Columbia, all of the territories, and every province in between. They all have national standards to which they must adhere.
Since I have the floor for a moment, I want to ensure that you understand correctly what I said about no drilling. If we were to remove clause 13 from the bill, then it would become virtually useless in one important respect. There will be areas in MCAs, as I have said, in which development — not mineral development but business development — fishing, aquaculture, tourism and whatever else we can think of, will not merely be permitted but encouraged. However, in each MCA, another kind of area will be almost completely protected. That is the kind of area that is referred to in clause 13. For example, there is no possibility that one could, no matter how much was found, drill for oil, to use an absurd example, in Banff National Park or Jasper National Park or Yoho National Park. It is not on. It does not make any difference what you find there.
I have to tell you that in respect of Banff, the Government of Canada made that mistake many years ago. I do not know if you have ever driven into Banff from the east, but when you come to the foothills of the Rockies, the first thing that meets your eye is the worst, ugliest, most horrible, disgusting cement plant in the world, which has displaced a mountain. That mountain used to be in a national park. A decision was made at the time to move the boundaries of the national park so that they could put in this disgusting factory.
I am partly joking because it has been a very valuable factory. However, the point is, once a national park is established, and once the fully protected part of an MCA is established, exploration for oil, for example, or any other mineral will not be allowed. That is such an important part of this proposed legislation. If we were to remove it, it would literally destroy half of the point of the bill. The other half is sustainable development and all that that means.
The Chairman: Just so you do not think this is too draconian, before a national park area is set out, the oil or mining companies may, with all you people, have input into where it will be. You might say, ``Well, let us move it over a few kilometres this way or that.'' In other words, it will not happen like magic. You will not wake up one morning and find yourself in a park. There will be consultations with the provincial government and yourselves. You may well have your own geologists, engineers, or what have you to advise you. There will be considerable input.
Senator Banks is right. Once a park is created, there is no going back. I was a party to that decision, and there are still parts of the Northwest Territories that want to hang me in effigy because I would not allow an iron mine to be started up in a park in the High Arctic. Once you allow a national park to be used for the commercial production of minerals or oil, you create a snowball effect.
The point is that you and industry will have a major chance to ensure that they do not lay out a park over another Hibernia.
Senator Banks: I hope you will take some comfort, folks, as I do, from the fact that oil fields make a lot of money and governments like money. I do not think you could find an example of demonstrable oil reserves anywhere in this country that the Government of Canada has declared off limits for development.
Ms Monaghan: You do have to think, as a government, of where your taxes come from. They come, in most part, from resources. Northern British Columbia pays huge sums in tax dollars to both the federal and provincial governments for our natural resources, but we always seem to be almost penalized for living up here. We are getting a little antsy.
As for consultation, we have had a park slapped on us in B.C. that no one wanted except for a handful of environmentalists, who wanted it badly. Those were the people who were consulted. We never had a chance. You know why we are gun shy.
Ms Hartwell: If you are suggesting to us today, Mr. Chairman, that this is all going to be taxed, you are giving us an opportunity to speak but it will go ahead anyway, we have no assurances, once the federal government signs on, that the provincial government will not do the same thing, and then we will not have a voice.
The Chairman: I hope you are not paranoid. You are living in the prettiest scenery in North America, with the sea, the fishing and the nice people. You are probably in the best spot in the world.
Ms Groves: We want it to stay that way.
The Chairman: This is the trouble. The environmentalists want it to stay the same way, so there will be some saw-off. As I say, I do not think anything of value, a fishing ground or oil or anything else, would not be taken into consideration before park boundaries are set up. No efforts have been made, at least in Canada, to try to use park boundaries to preclude development. Park boundaries are set out to preserve some desirable feature.
Mr. Corless: You can understand my colleagues' concerns about consultation. Our council had to write twice to obtain an interview to let our views be known. We are very concerned about the consultation process because we have had very little until now. Frankly, we are having trouble trusting the process.
The Chairman: Join most of the human race. Senator Banks pointed out that this particular change would have to be approved by both the House of Commons and the Senate. The Senate, not having to win next year's election, might take a little different approach from the House of Commons. We think we have set it up so that you will have appropriate input.
Senator Cochrane: My question is to Mr. Beldesi from the Queen Charlotte area.
Ms Monaghan: He has left already. Can someone else help you?
Senator Cochrane: I wanted to ask about some of the comments he made. He referred to local experience with other Parks Canada creations. I was wondering if he could be specific about that and tell us what he was referring to.
Ms Monaghan: Perhaps we can get in contact with him and have him write you a note.
Mr. Corless: He was referring to the South Moresby National Park.
Senator Cochrane: Tell us about that. What was wrong with it? What was his relationship with Parks Canada?
Mr. Corless: I am not able to speak to it much, other than to say it was thrust upon them. I know it precluded logging in that area. It was a very good area for logging, apparently.
Ms Monaghan: Many people lost their jobs and could not find new ones. There were suicides. Families split up. It was a horrific situation on the island.
The Chairman: Mr. Wampler, I believe you mentioned that you were worried about Parks Canada having charge of the marine parks and that we should just leave them under the jurisdiction of the Oceans Act. We do have land parks. We have found there is a need to set up a special parks administration, rather than turning it over to Environment or Fisheries or Agriculture. There are umpteen departments that would like to operate the parks, but I think Canadians feel that with the type of parks we have, all the way from the High Arctic to urban areas to the West Coast, Parks Canada does a better job of coordinating all the interests. Admittedly, Oceans could do better in some ways, and in Alberta I am sure mining and geological departments would probably do better looking after Banff. The point is that you would have all these different departments running different parks. I think that might be one of the answers. Did you want to comment on that?
Ms Hartwell: Those concerns were about duplicating the Oceans Act. The Oceans Act looked after existing parks without the need for a new Bill C-10.
The Chairman: Have you always been happy with the Oceans Act?
Ms Hartwell: Yes. It seemed to fulfil all the requirements for parks, and we do not need Bill C-10 stretching it that much further.
The Chairman: None of you are fisher people, are you?
Ms Hartwell: Some residents in my community fish, yes.
Ms Monaghan: We have a lot of relatives.
Ms Hartwell: Typically, they fish in the summer and log in the winter. They live in these communities and do both so they can earn an adequate income for their families. This is quite all-encompassing. If the government wants recreational rather than commercial fishing, this may not be suitable for them either. I do not think we have heard from this group of people.
Senator Eyton: I appreciate very much the process that we are going through now in speaking to you long distance.I think it is working quite well. I hear quite a lot of scepticism. On April 30 in particular, tax filing day, I am reminded of that expression, ''I am from National Revenue and I am here to help you.'' I think some of that is reflected in your comments.
I have one observation for my colleague Senator Banks. I do not know why you could not have a piece of federal legislation that was conditional in some way on the provinces signing up. In effect, the national standard and its application would be implemented province by province, or perhaps region by region. I do not know why you could not have a partial application that would be expanded with the approval of the jurisdictions to be governed by it. I am a broken-down lawyer, so perhaps I should not say anything about it, but I do not see why that is impossible.
Senator Banks: I will answer that by saying that no marine conservation area can be set up without the approval of the province if there is any provincial land involved.
Senator Eyton: No, we are not talking about that.
Senator Banks: Yes, we are.
Senator Eyton: I see that as protecting that land. However, we are talking here about a federal application that dramatically affects people living in a certain province and who may want to express their views or concerns about a federal designation of federal lands that adjoin the areas where they live.
I do not know why that is impossible.
Senator Keon was optimistic in saying some clauses appeared to be the focus of your concerns. However, as I was checking off the clauses you referred to during your cumulative presentation, it struck me that you really covered the entire bill. You spoke with some confidence about that opposition on behalf of the people there. Is that reflected in your brand-new provincial government as well?
Ms Hartwell: Fundamentally, it is. I have actually had meetings with Premier Campbell to discuss this. They are trying to lift the moratorium. That says to me that they want to go ahead with growth and development. They have already promised that offshore oil and gas exploration could go ahead, provided it is done in an environmentally sustainable manner. We agreed with that. That is why he was elected.
Senator Eyton: I wish to be more precise than that. Do you know what the provincial government's attitude is toward Bill C-10?
Ms Monahan: I have had some discussions with them. I believe they feel that we are sufficiently legislated. The provincial government has already set aside, as I said, 12 per cent of our lands in parks. They have many other guidelines. Between the province and the federal government, we are pretty well regulated to death right now.
We are meeting with the northern caucus in two days. That will certainly be one of the topics of discussion.
Senator Eyton: It is important to know that.
As you protested various clauses, I was wondering if this bill might be made palatable in any form. I wrote down some key phrases as you went through your presentation. The first was ``consultation.'' I will return to that in a moment.
The second, and it seemed reasonable, was ``a management plan before the fact, not within five years after the fact.''
The third was designating these areas as ``perpetual'' so that they could not be removed within the context of a review process.
Returning to consultation, and there are a variety of references to ``consultation'' in the bill, I want to read clause 10 into the record. Again, as a broken-down lawyer, I used to love to draft agreements where the only obligation on the party I was acting for was merely to consult with the other side. That was quite wonderful. It meant that you had complete authority to carry on as you wished after you had gone through some sort of consulting process.
Thinking of that, I look at clause 10, which reads:
The Minister shall provide opportunities for consultation with relevant federal and provincial ministers and agencies and affected coastal communities, aboriginal organizations and bodies established under land claims agreements, and with any other persons and bodies that the Minister considers appropriate in the development of marine conservation area policy, the establishment and modification of marine conservation areas and any other matters the Minister considers appropriate.
It is qualified by what the minister thinks is appropriate.
Given the three points that I mentioned, and there may be something else you wish to raise, are there any two or three areas in this bill that could be amended to make it palatable to you?
Mr. Corless: Being a ``broken-down lawyer,'' as you put it, you can see it does not say when they will consult with us. Here we are at the 11th hour and finally we are getting our chance to say something. That is not consulting.
The Chairman: That is the other part of what a lawyer likes about such agreements. There is no time line. He can go on and on and pass it to his children.
Senator Banks: However, Senator Eyton's services to us all are free here today: a remarkable thing.
The Chairman: Would you care to give us a summation?
Before we get to that, I wanted to mention to the Prince Rupert and Port Edward people that less than 100 miles north of you is the U.S. Misty Fiords National Monument. I do not think they allow any offshore oil exploration, extending up to Ketchikan. There are protected areas in the U.S. that do not seem to have shut down the Alaska oil industry.
Ms Monaghan: That is right, but they also allow other exploration to take place.
We think that this is going to be a mess. We have no reason to believe that it will not be. We have not been able to have our say. Right now, we are very upset with the U.S. because of the softwood lumber dispute. It is not really a good subject to broach.
Mr. Corless: If I could make a comment about Alaska, they have much more exploration on land. Our governments seem to be scared to tackle the problem of a pipeline. That is what makes oil and gas exploration in the Hecate Strait a little more palatable. Nobody knows how to deal with all the levels of government, and now land claims, to build any sort of a pipeline to get the oil and gas out of the Bowser Basin, which is practically on our doorstep here. There are other methods, but nobody knows how to deal with them. That is why we are thinking that the oil and gas out in the Hecate Strait might be an answer to this problem. Some other levels of government may think the same thing.
The Chairman: Is there anything else you would like to add?
Ms Hartwell: I would just like to try to get the last lick in. I did say in my opening statement that we feel that a marine conservation area will be slapped on us without consultation. I do not think tourism will make up for the lost oil and gas revenue.
Having said that, can you step up to the plate with compensation dollars for the communities and the province so that we can move ahead with some kind of a plan?
The Chairman: As you know, there was such a plan in the Maritimes when the cod fisheries collapsed. I do not know if the federal government is working on any sort of a plan to supplement lost income. I guess your fisheries are not doing that well and neither is softwood lumber. It would depend on how effective your Premier is in pleading his case in Ottawa. It took the Maritimers a while, but they got their case through.
The possibility always exists, but that is not part of this committee's work.
Ms Hartwell: I understand that. How much time do we have before this bill is adopted?
The Chairman: As chairman, I do not know. We have a few more people to hear from. We may then report it to the Senate with amendments or with advice. It will be debated there and will go to third reading. I do not see it happening before the middle or end of June. It may even go through to the fall. However, it will probably be in June some time.
Senator Banks: I wish to refer to Senator Eyton's question about province-by-province implementation. I certainly do not pretend to know how much federally controlled land there is in British Columbia. However, I will make a guess, and please correct me immediately if I am wrong because it will destroy my next point. I will guess that with the exception of South Moresby, most of the land is provincially controlled. One cannot say exactly where marine conservation areas will be.
However, certainly some of them will be in areas that abut coastlines and will therefore, almost by definition, include part of that coastline. The only kind of land that can be included in a marine conservation area after consultation is land that is clearly owned, for all intents and purposes, by the Crown in right of Canada.
The kind of MCA to which I refer, which would include not only the waters and submarine land but a certain amount of the coastline, could not proceed unless the province, as I understand it, were prepared to sign over that land to the Government of Canada. The bill specifically precludes such a thing.
When MCAs are proposed that include coastline owned by the Government of British Columbia, they could not proceed without the full agreement of that government and, in fact, the signing over of title to that land to the Government of Canada. As a result, there is a degree of protection there.
There is one last thing I want to say because you mentioned many times how thin the consultation has been to this point. If this were the House of Commons, I would ask, ``Precisely which MCA is it that you have reservations about and about which you have not been consulted?'' The answer would be, ``We do not know yet.'' My point is that the important consultations, including here is where it is, here is what we are talking about, here is how deep it is, here is how wide it is, here is how long it is, here is how much coastline is involved and here is the nature of those two different areas to be included in this MCA, cannot begin until that is established.
I agree that you have not had any consultations yet. The process has not started. I feel very confident in saying that you will see, once an area is proposed for an MCA and the initial plan is put into place, a great deal of consultation to which great weight will be given.
Ms Monaghan: I am glad to hear that consultation will take place. However, I heard it would be between the federal and provincial governments and Aboriginal people. Honourable senators must realize that all of B.C. is under some type of Aboriginal land claims process now. They put all the lands into their treaty claims. They will not get all the lands, but if, for instance, one of the fish spawning areas were to be included in a conservation area, there would certainly be a great deal of trouble with the Aboriginal people, and we know what it is like to have them be unhappy.
If you consult with them about fish spawning rivers, our commercial people, who are either fishing or fish farming, would not be in the same position to make dollars for their families. This is one of the things about which we are worried.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation.
The committee adjourned.