Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 26 - Evidence - March 19, 2002
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 19, 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, met this day at 6:30 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Nicholas W. Taylor (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, this is our second meeting with Mr. Lee. As such, Mr. Lee, I do not believe you need to make another statement. We will go right into questions.
I will begin the questioning by looking at the oil industry on the West Coast, as I have been in the oil business all my life. It would be nice if the B.C. government and the federal government would get together and decide who is to manage the offshore. Unlike the East Coast, there is no agreement on the West Coast. Off the West Coast, I think they are working under the old regime, where the provincial government has rights for a couple of miles out and then the federal government goes out another 10 or 12 miles. However, that is not germane to the question I wanted to ask you.
If the B.C. government and the federal government wanted to exploit offshore reserves, how would the establishment of your national marine conservation areas affect that exploration? As you know, they use geophysical methods to go back and forth in the water; they do not actually disturb the bottom. Will seismic lines or geophysical lines be able to be towed in the water across the park?
My second question is this: Will the parks be of such size that oil and gas can be accessed with modern-day drilling, which can reach out about 4 kilometres? I think the day will come when we will be able to go out 5 or 6 kilometres underwater. How big would the parks be in that case?
Those are my two questions. The first relates to exploring an area in the park; the second relates to whether the park would be small enough for oil and gas to be accessed from it.
Mr. Thomas Lee, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada Agency, Canadian Heritage: Let me deal with that in a very practical way, because the approach may be different, depending on where you are.
We are interested in three areas on the Pacific West Coast, and I will go from south to north. One is in the Southern Gulf Islands area, just off Victoria. This is an area on which there is no known potential. That would have to be validated as part of any process to establish a park or a marine conservation area, but at this point there would not appear to be any conflict. There would be a public process, which would also include an assessment of any mineral or other interests.
The second area where we have an interest is in what I would call the central coast, which might be loosely defined as the area of Bella Bella south. That is an area that potentially may have oil and gas. As part of the study for that area, appropriate studies would be carried out and people would be permitted to use the normal techniques for exploration.
The third area that we have an interest in, which is contained in the 1988 agreements to create Gwaii Haanas Park, is the area immediately surrounding that park in Hecate Strait and off the west shore of Moresby Island. That area has been explored extensively by a number of oil and gas companies that have rights in that area. Those companies did not have any commercial finds in the proposed marine conservation area and have voluntarily given up their rights in the interests of having the marine conservation area established.
That is generally the scenario. We have three potential areas, two with no known conflicts and the third one would have to be subject to a thorough feasibility study, including an assessment of any rights.
The second part of your question relates to how we might deal with underwater utilization of reserves through underground drilling techniques and so on. As I indicated to you last time, we would prefer not to have a marine conservation area where such reserves existed, so our choice is to avoid both those potential areas and the utilization of those type of techniques.
The Chairman: After more than half a century in ocean exploration, I know they always find something where everybody says there is not anything. Although companies may tell you that there is nothing there and they give it up, that does not mean another company, another idea or another concept might not come through. When I finished school, there was no oil or gas off Nova Scotia or Newfoundland either. That was back in the ancient days.
Is the process irreversible? Can the parks be made small enough so they can explore underneath, if you decide to form parks?
Mr. Lee: The first preference is to totally avoid that issue. I recognize there is always a degree of certainty involved in making a decision. The total area taken up by these places will be small; we are talking a relatively small percentage of the subsurface area in Canada, in the order of approximately 3 per cent.
Having done our utmost to ensure that there is not any conflict, ultimately, in setting aside 3 per cent, we might have captured an oil-rich area. That is a decision for some future generation to make, if the world suddenly found that it had no oil and gas reserves and there was no source of energy other than these areas. I think the citizens of the day would have to make that choice.
The Chairman: That is the problem the U.S. is facing after creating a huge park between the Yukon and Point Barrow. They are now trying to find ways of moving the oil and gas out without making everybody mad.
It is a question of size. Three per cent does not sound like much, unless it is a single area. What was given back on the Charlottes is roughly 80 miles by 20 miles, is not it?
Mr. Lee: It is probably in that order.
The Chairman: That is a large area. If they are that size, it could make a difference.
Senator Cochrane: I was hoping you might be able to tell us more about the agency's interest in establishing a marine conservation area in Bonavista in the late 1990s.
At that time, the marine conservation policy did not clearly describe how it could accommodate the commercial fishery. I should like to know whether this has been addressed since that time. Has the commercial fishery issue been dealt with on a practical level in establishing other marine conservation areas? What was the response of the local fishers in Bonavista? What were their concerns and how were they addressed during the consultation process?
Mr. Lee: Let us begin with Bonavista. There were a number of things that did not go right there. Some of them reflected our lack of experience in dealing with this type of thing — more than that, we developed a process that did not allow us to engage directly with the public. We established a committee to do the work on our behalf. They wanted to operate independently, so we, in fact, cut ourselves out of the dialogue and found ourselves over on the side. We were never able to get involved in issues like commercial fishing in a way that enabled us to have a dialogue and develop an understanding.
There were external factors happening at the same time. This was the height of the fishery problems, when people were angry and frustrated. They did not want to talk to anybody. We got caught in that.
We have changed our process. The only reserve we worked very intensively on since then is Lake Superior, and we deeply engaged the commercial fishermen on that. We are working together and do not have that type of problem occurring.
We learned from Bonavista. We entered into a very flexible and open process and found that people felt they were not getting the answers they needed. We said that we did not have all the answers and tried to work with them to get something that worked. What we found in that particular instance — it probably is reflective of other things that we will run into, because we ran into it at Lake Superior — is that Parks Canada needs to be more definitive about the possibilities and range of options, so that people can aid in the decision.
On a practical level, we have two fully operating areas, both of which have commercial fisheries in them. They are somewhat distinctive. One is the Saguenay-St. Lawrence, where there is an existing commercial fishery. The other is Fathom Five, which also has an existing fishery, except the provincial rather than the federal government is the regulatory manager in the Great Lakes. We have experience in both of those and there are no distinct problems there. On the whole, there is cooperative and positive work ongoing.
The marine conservation bill does not change the responsibilities of the federal government in terms of fisheries management. The Minister of Canadian Heritage, in exercising her powers under the national marine conservation areas to the extent that they include management of resources, must always do so with the concurrence with the Minister of Fisheries. That is how it operates, and we are comfortable with it.
Senator Cochrane: That is the way it operates now. Was DFO involved at that time in the consultation process?
Mr. Lee: In the case of Bonavista, DFO was partially engaged, almost in the same way we were because of our turning the project over to a committee. Both of us were disengaged from where we should have been.
Senator Cochrane: This committee was not local people. They were outside of the province; is that correct?
Mr. Lee: They were all local people, selected by the community. They wanted to set up their own study and run their own process, but it stumbled partway through.
Senator Cochrane: Where does it stand now?
Mr. Lee: We terminated work on that proposal and made it clear that we were not going to establish an area with the opposition of local people. We did leave the door open; if they want to come back and talk, they can.
Senator Cochrane: The reason you had opposition was because of the timing. The moratorium was announced. There was a lack of consultation with DFO and Environment, thus the timing was not right for the people to react in a positive way.
Mr. Lee: I would agree that there were other factors. There was a local election in progress at the time as well.
Senator Cochrane: Yes, that as well.
Mr. Lee: This item got caught in that situation. I would not say it was an accident that was set to happen, but there were a lot of accidental things going on that we were not able to manage at that time.
I would stress, Senator Cochrane, that sometimes things like this can happen. If, at some time in the future, people are willing to move ahead, we will do it. We are prepared to attempt to invest and develop their trust, but we will not be approaching them. We are open; if local people want to talk to us, they can.
The national parks and the national marine conservation areas of Canada take an average eight years from the beginning of discussions to the point where an agreement might be reached. Unfortunately, Bonavista did not last even one year. People did not give it time.
Senator Cochrane: Are you saying it is in the people's court?
Mr. Lee: I am saying we would wait to hear a response from the people. If they want to talk about it, we will go to community meetings. We would attend group meetings or anything of that nature. However, we will not initiate another feasibility study until they are ready to initiate that study. We are certainly still interested. We would encourage people to consider that matter.
Senator Tommy Banks (Acting Chairman) in the Chair.
The Acting Chairman: With regard to Bonavista, notwithstanding the powers of the minister, the establishment of a conservation area was not bulldozed against the wishes of the people who were there; correct?
Mr. Lee: Absolutely not.
The Acting Chairman: Was it not also the case in Lake Superior that there was stiff initial resistance to the idea? Tell us what happened in that case.
Mr. Lee: That was somewhat different. I would not describe it as ``stiff.'' We did get people to agree that they would give it consideration, and people named their own representatives. The various organizations, such as the municipality, the fish and game clubs, the conservation organizations and the tourism people nominated their representatives. I believe we started out with a committee of roughly 12 or 14, of which probably at least 9 or 10 had severe reservations, if not opposition, to the idea in the beginning.
Nevertheless, they wanted to have a look at it and so we went ahead. Over a period of what is now almost four years, they spoke to people in their communities. I believe more than 70 meetings were held. A number of public surveys were conducted and a number of open houses were held. I personally held round-table discussions with all the major organizations in the area. Over that period of time, they concluded that they indeed supported a marine conservation area, outlined the terms and conditions under which they would support it, and presented those to government. Subsequent to their presentation, we have indicated general support for what they recommended and we are now in discussions with Ontario about a federal-provincial agreement that could lead to the creation of the area.
The Acting Chairman: Winston Churchill said that you can consult the prisoner as to whether he would like to have his head cut off in the morning and he would likely say that on the whole he would rather you not do so, then you would cut off his head in the morning and say that you had consulted with him. In those two cases, the consultations were meaningful. In one case, it stopped the initiative; in the other, it proceeded with the agreement of the local parties.
Mr. Lee: It proceeded with the support of the local parties. That is absolutely fair and that is reflected in our behaviour. According to the bill, as you would be aware, where there are provincial jurisdictions involved we cannot create one of these areas without the agreement of the province. It is not possible.
Senator Kelleher: This is somewhat theoretical, but picking up on the remarks of our chairman, who would ever have thought that we would have diamonds in North America. Therefore, the concern one always has with mining and oil and gas exploration is that you cut off areas where, later, exploration becomes viable through new techniques.
I will be honest with you. I have not read all the clauses in the bill. Is there anything in there that forbids the subsequent looking at exploration in any of these areas?
Once this proposed legislation comes into force, that is the end. Is there anything in the bill that does that, or is there anything in there that would permit access later?
Mr. Lee: The passage of this bill has no impact because it creates no areas. It is simply a framework piece of legislation. It is like the National Parks Act. If you want to establish an area, rather than having to introduce new legislation and repetitive legislation every time you wanted to establish one, this is the framework. The passage of this bill has no impact in that sense.
Senator Kelleher: Are you talking about Canada as an area?
Mr. Lee: This establishes no areas.
Senator Kelleher: Does that mean anywhere in Canada?
Mr. Lee: That means anywhere. The bill provides a framework. The first step in the process would be to identify that you want to have an area. You would then go through the public process. To the best of your ability, you do all of the assessments of mineral, gas and oil, all the resource areas, including fisheries and so on. From that you try to select an area that, to the best of your knowledge, does not contain that conflict.
In the third step, if you find that area, you put it in under this proposed legislation. At that point, there is explicit prohibition, as long as this area is a marine conservation area of either exploration or development of minerals, oil or gas.
Senator Kelleher: That was the second scenario I was speaking about. If that happens, say in the diamond mine, that new techniques come along and it is determined that indeed your marine park looks pretty ripe for exploitation, is there anything anyone can then do under the proposed act to at least look to having it opened up?
Mr. Lee: No. The step that would be taken at that stage would be to open up the act.
Senator Kelleher: This is after you have established the park.
Mr. Lee: You would have to open up the proposed act and change the nature of that area.
Senator Kelleher: That would be quite difficult, would it not?
Mr. Lee: It would be, and in that way it is parallel to the National Parks Act.
Senator Kelleher: That is pretty hopeless, too, according to some of the delegations we have heard from at this committee.
Mr. Lee: There are two parts to the response. First, is it possible? Yes, it is possible, but it would be difficult. Second, has it ever been done? Yes, it has. A portion of Banff National Park was removed. If you drive into Banff today, that portion is where you see the major cement factory, which at one time was part of Banff National Park.
Senator Kelleher: When I think of Banff and Jasper, I think in particular of people who trundle down here from Jasper, trying to get something changed to give themselves more autonomy in the administration of Jasper.
Mr. Lee: And they got it.
Senator Kelleher: Did they?
Mr. Lee: Yes.
Senator Kelleher: That is a pretty frustrating process. What I am concerned about is how difficult we make this process. Is there any opportunity to include a clause that at least permits such an application to be made? I know you people would not be wild about that, and I understand that.
Mr. Lee: committee members can choose to do what they will. We would not support that.
The degree of certainty and confidence with which you are prepared to proceed must be taken into consideration. In the case of national parks, because of conscious decisions, Canada has set about to conserve or preserve some very special places in Canada.
I would not argue that, someday, someone might not have found something underneath Gros Morne National Park. However, we had to take a decision, and we took it. I think all Canadians can live with that decision.
Senator Kelleher: Unless you are an oil or gas company.
Mr. Lee: As I say, we are dealing with a small percentage of the country. We are dealing with something about which Canadians are extremely proud and attached to. They have demonstrated their willingness to take that small amount of risk. As I say, there is always a chance that the world will change and that people will not need or want parks any more, that they would rather have gas and oil, but that will be the time to make that decision.
Frankly, I am very confident of our ability to move this ahead without undue distortion of the other side of the equation, which is having 100 per cent of Canada open to exploration. We can probably take the risk with the 3 per cent that we might wish to conserve because they are so special.
The Acting Chairman: Senator Kelleher, have you ever driven to Banff from Calgary?
Senator Kelleher: Yes. I have been in Banff on a number of occasions.
The Acting Chairman: When you drive from Calgary to Banff, you pass the most horrible, disgusting, revolting mistake we in this country have ever made.
Did you explain to the committee, Mr. Lee, the processes, the other kicks at the can that Parliament will have after this bill has been passed and when it is determined by Parks Canada that a conservation area ought to be established?
Mr. Lee: I have not, but I would be prepared to briefly, if you wish.
The Acting Chairman: Would members of the committee be interested in hearing about that process, briefly?
Mr. Lee: What I have described is the type of public consultation and feasibility study that leads to a decision where people say, either, ``Yes, we want one,'' or ``No, we do not want one.'' Let us assume that through local consultation people say that they want one. There are a number of things that must occur at that point in time.
First, there must be a federal-provincial agreement developed if a province is involved. That agreement must be approved by the respective cabinets of the governments of the day.
After that, you get into a debate in Parliament about whether Parliament would establish that area. There are a number of items built into the bill that include the fact that we must bring into the House a report on the proposed green conservation area that will include information on consultations, a list of names of organizations, et cetera, and an interim management plan so people will know how the area will be managed, as well as ``the results of any assessments of minerals and energy resources...''
Those all come to the House as part of whether or not the House wishes to establish this area. Both Houses of Parliament can assess whether they feel comfortable about adequate consideration having been given to all values, conservation or resources, and whether the studies are adequate and so on. The two Houses then vote on it and a decision is made as to whether to establish the area or not.
That material — proof that we did good and thorough public consultation — would come before both Houses. Proof that we did good resource assessment, whether it is to do with mineral, gas, wildlife or fisheries, will come before you.
Recommendations as to how the area will be managed will come before you in the form of an interim management plan.
The Acting Chairman: What happens if a committee of either House reports back to its respective House recommending that the marine conservation area not be established and that House accepts that report?
Ms Susan Katz, Director, Legislation and Policy, Parks Canada Agency, Canadian Heritage: In that situation, Mr. Chairman, the area would not be established.
Senator Christensen: You have said this is 3 per cent of the three oceans that you are looking at to establish marine parks.
Mr. Lee: Yes, 3 per cent of the oceans and Great Lakes.
Senator Christensen: What is the criterion for that first step to identify an area? What are you looking for? In national parks, we are looking for ecosystems, special flora and fauna, while in marine parks you are saying that fishing could continue, et cetera. What is the criterion for the first step that says, yes, this is an area that should be looked at, and the rest of the steps follow after that?
Mr. Lee: At the last meeting, we told you that Canada is broken down into a number of marine areas. Let us say, for example, that one of those is Lake Superior, that it has a special ecological condition and we want to establish one marine conservation area in Lake Superior. The next step is work we undertake with specialists, biologists, conservation people, ecologists and fisheries people, to look at Lake Superior and consider what area or areas in that lake would best represent that region.
For example, in Lake Superior, as I recall, our initial studies actually identified three areas. We took what we thought was the best of the three options that we had and then approached the people on the North Shore to begin the process that I described.
In the course of the feasibility work, we retested the original assumptions that said that this area really does have rare plant species and special aquatic conditions. It does have values that would be of terrific interest to Canadians in terms of education and interpretation and visits to this area to learn about Canada and the marine environment. Those are all retested as part of the feasibility process.
The Acting Chairman: Would you also tell us, please, about the fact that each marine area will contain at least two different zones? One of them will be restrictive in the sense that we have been talking about, but the other zone, at least one other zone, will be less restrictive, and no conservation area will be established unless it contains at least two such zones. Am I right?
Mr. Lee: That is correct. That wording came out of the Committee of Canadian Heritage, which first looked at the bill. They wanted some description of the zoning. We said there may be a variety of zones, but there are at least always two. One of them will be quite a restricted zone in terms of the type of things that could happen in it. These are typically very sensitive, reproduction birthplaces, spawning areas of fish and so on, where there is very high protection. The other zone would be a multiple-use zone in which, quite frankly, my objective would be to be the best in the world at sustainable management.
The distribution of those zones would be distinguished. Each area would be different. The conservation proposal for Lake Superior, for example, contains a very small amount of high protection zone, something in the order of 1 to 3 per cent of that area, and 97 per cent of it is in that sustainable production mode, best practices that we can get. I can envisage another area where you might have more protected zones than that relatively small amount. It would vary from area to area.
The intention is definitely to have the protected zones to be defined as those areas in which a very limited number of things can happen because the resource is so fragile that you may destroy its reproductive capacity.
Senator Sibbeston: There are also provisions in the bill with respect to land claim agreements. The land claim agreements that are affected in any way are to be dealt with. I notice in clause 5(2)(c) that an amendment to a schedule can only be made after the requirements of any applicable land claim agreements respecting the establishment of the marine conservation area have been fulfilled. Further on, in clause 9(5), there is also a provision relating to having to be mindful of the land claim agreements where there are provisions for the establishment of marine parks and land claim agreements. You are directed here to take that into consideration. There may be other places in the proposed legislation where consideration is given. In the consultation process, are there provisions with respect to consulting with Aboriginal people who are affected?
Mr. Lee: Yes. They are contained in clause 10. There are other major items. You have captured a number of them.
Clause 9(1) was added as a result of some positive discussion with Aboriginal people. Its purpose is to ensure that the appropriate bodies established under land claims would continue their defined roles.
Senator Sibbeston: It is very important. One of the things we heard when the Aboriginal Peoples Committee travelled to the northern territories last spring was that some of the Aboriginal peoples who are affected by the actions or the management of national parks were concerned that there be real meaningful cooperation in the management. We heard everywhere we met — Inuvik, Whitehorse, Iqaluit — that Parks Canada had to be more northern-oriented in its management. With respect to those areas of Canada in the Arctic, are there presently provisions in the land claim agreements that relate to marine conservation areas?
Mr. Lee: I will have to get back to you on that question, senator. My answer would be, as distinct from national parks, no. In a number of the land claim agreements, even the national parks were established directly in the land claim. In other cases, there was specific provision and the expressed desire of the two parties to have a national park. That came after. That was specific.
With marine conservation areas, I do not believe that we would find any specific provisions; however, I do believe you will find generic provisions. I will ask counsel to look at that and get back to the committee on that point.
Senator Sibbeston: The aspect of Aboriginal peoples and parks is relevant. People who come to the North love the land, but there is also a great interest in Aboriginal people and seeing them in the way they live, not only now but in their passage through their culture, and their movement and activities in the park area. I cannot imagine any park or conservation park being established without the full involvement of Aboriginal people. They add such an interesting dimension to a park.
People travel thousands of miles to visit somewhere very unique and different. As an example, going to some of the parks on Baffin Island is like going to the moon. The geography and the country is so different, so unique, and so fantastic. If you do not include something about the original peoples there, it is not as good. One does not get the full picture of the land. People are so closely related to the land.
I cannot help but think that it would be very important that the provisions in here represent the view that the Aboriginal people are very involved. They would add a fantastic dimension to the entire process.
Mr. Lee: I had the opportunity and the privilege to appear before Senator Sibbeston and some of his other colleagues around this table on the work they were doing. I would second what Senator Sibbeston said about the spirit in which we enter into the process and the goals that we have. I am so proud to be part of the process. It is terrific.
That is nothing to do with this committee, but on the subcommittee report, I did review, as a matter of fact, today, the response that we will be giving to the Senate report, and I think you will be very pleased when you get it. We will do the best we can.
Senator Christensen: We wait with baited breath.
Mr. Lee: I think you asked for it before the end of March, so I have another few days.
Senators, our next witnesses are Mr. Murphy and Mr. Campbell from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
Please proceed, gentlemen.
Mr. Michael Murphy, Senior Vice President, Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce: Honourable senators, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is probably well-known to most members of the committee, so I will dispense with our introduction. Suffice it to say that we represent a very wide range of businesses from the standpoints of geography, size of firm and sectors of the economy. Many of those businesses are very much concerned with the subject of risk management and the definition of the precautionary principle. It is on that subject that we appear before you this evening.
In the second paragraph of the preamble of the bill, the precautionary principle is defined as follows:
...where there are threats of environmental damage, lack of scientific certainty is not used as a reason for postponing preventive measures;
This definition of the principle is not consistent with the definition of the principle in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which in turn was derived from the definition agreed to at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
The CEPA definition reads as follows:
Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce would draw the attention of members of this committee to several key differences between the Bill C-10 definition of the precautionary principle and the CEPA definition.
The first is the invocation of the principle itself. In Bill C-10, the precautionary principle is invoked where there are threats of environmental damage. This provides no useful threshold to determine what level of threat or how credible of a threat is required. In CEPA, the words ``threats of serious or irreversible damage'' signal a high threshold of imminent harm before the principle is invoked.
Our second point is the degree of scientific certainty. In the Environmental Protection Act, the words ``lack of full scientific certainty'' imply that there is still a need for sufficient scientific data to establish that a plausible threat exists for the possibility of serious or irreversible harm. Some degree of certainty is required before invocation of the precautionary principle is appropriate. Without the word ``full'' in the definition, there would be no clear threshold for any scientifically sound justification before action would be taken.
Our third point, Mr. Chairman, is the cost-effectiveness of actions proposed. Under the definition used in the environmental protection legislation, unlike that in Bill C-10, any measures to prevent the risk of harm are to be cost- effective. This ensures that with any actions taken the cost of the measure is proportional to the risk of harm. As the scientific certainty of risk goes up, the justification for costlier measures is similarly increased.
The goal of risk management is scientifically sound, cost-effective integrated actions that reduce risks while taking into account social, cultural, ethical, political and legal considerations. It is very important, for public credibility, that throughout government there is a consistent approach to risk management.
In that regard, last fall the federal government released a discussion paper on the precautionary principle. The consultation period for that document is not yet complete and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce will be submitting a response to the discussion paper soon.
While the government-wide consultation period on this issue is underway, we do not believe it would be appropriate to put into legislation a definition of the precautionary principle that is inconsistent with that used in other areas of government.
We would encourage you to amend the definition of the principle in Bill C-10 to ensure that it is consistent with the definition used in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and agreed to internationally at the Rio Earth Summit.
The Acting Chairman: The CEPA regulations apply to land that you or I or a mining enterprise own. The provisions in this bill are applying to what I will characterize as a national park. Do you not think they should be somewhat different?
Mr. Murphy: I will focus on important framework legislation, which is what we have in this case. If we are going to discuss degrees of importance, the measures enacted in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act deal with very important public policy issues as well. To the extent that we have degrees of difference between various pieces of legislation, it strikes me as not an appropriate way to go at this stage. We are trying to make a determination on a government-wide basis, we are into a consultative process, and yet there is a definition here that is inconsistent with one that has been generally applicable in international standards for the last 10 years. That is clearly our concern at this point.
The Acting Chairman: Would the Chamber of Commerce be in favour of applying only the CEPA principles to, for example, Banff National Park?
Mr. Murphy: In terms of application, in each of the areas where you will want to apply the precautionary principle, it will be effective to have a consistent level of definition across the piece. I cannot comment specifically in terms of any particular application, and I am certainly no expert on national parks and the importance of them. Our view speaks to the consistency issue. It is an important principle that we are discussing on a government-wide basis. We already have it enshrined after a major debate on environmental protection legislation, which is significant legislation in its own right, and we are already seeing it applied internationally in other areas of regulation, including food safety, for example. I have to question why we would want to divert from that in this legislation. That kind of inconsistency does not seem to make sense.
The Acting Chairman: It already exists because CEPA does not apply in any national sense.
Mr. Murphy: Our specific concern is that we have at this point a proposal from government coming to us as one stakeholder — and many stakeholders will be commenting on this exercise — proposing a definition that looks very much like the Rio process, which was applied within CEPA. Now we are looking at an entirely different approach here. We just do not see how that can be reconciled.
Senator Cochrane: Have you seen the amendments of the House of Commons? Do you feel they significantly improve the bill, or do they address any of your concerns?
Mr. Murphy: On the whole, the concern is there. I shall ask my colleague Mr. Campbell to comment specifically. We are concerned that we have a gap here that reflects a significant inconsistency, and we want to see that addressed. We hope the committee can take action in that regard.
Mr. Scott Campbell, Policy Analyst, Canadian Chamber of Commerce: I am not sure what change you are talking about. I know in the original bill, several sessions of Parliament ago, the definition was the way it was in CEPA; however, the House of Commons took several words out to arrive at the current definition.
Senator Cochrane: Our assistants have the amendments to the bill from the House of Commons. Have you seen them?
Mr. Campbell: I am not sure if I have.
Senator Cochrane: We have heard from Mr. Lee. He was talking about the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, which is a good example of conservation and business principles interacting. Do you have any comments on this, you being a representative of business?
Mr. Murphy: I do not have a comment on the specifics of any of the particular geographic areas that the representatives from Parks Canada mention. Our appearance here today is very much at the level of the principle of the definition. That is our concern. I am not in a position to comment on other aspects of the legislation.
Senator Cochrane: We must do something with the definition, according to the chamber. We will certainly look at this.
Mr. Murphy: That is the proposal. We are looking to take language that has already been out there, that has been agreed to inside Canada in that particular application and is now being brought forward again by the government in its broad consultative exercise. I think by the end of the month we will be making our reply, and others will be doing so as well. We will be happy to share that with the committee.
Senator Cochrane: We are pleased that you attended here to express your view. We will look into this, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Eyton: I think you are spot-on. In the context of today and with the forces that are out there, we are just begging for trouble and confrontation, on a basis where no one really knows for certain what they are doing. I would accept completely your suggestion.
Senator Keon: It could not be more straightforward. Either we do it or we do not do it.
The Acting Chairman: It is a very clear choice.
Do you have anything further to add, gentlemen?
Mr. Murphy: No. We only wanted to take a few minutes to be with you today, to impress upon you the importance and the value to all of our members to try to get this lack of consistency restored. I think you have the opportunity to do that.
The Acting Chairman: I want to be sure that I understand this. It is the Chamber's position that the same protections — if that is a fair characterization — or criteria for protections ought to apply in national parks and in marine conservation areas as they do in the rest of the country outside of national parks and marine conservation areas. Is that correct?
Mr. Murphy: If you are going to write in a definition in this piece of legislation, or in any other, for that matter, we would like to ensure that it is consistent. That is absolutely correct.
The Acting Chairman: You are saying that, one mile outside of Jasper National Park, the regulations for criteria establishing protection ought to be the same as they are one mile inside Jasper National Park?
Mr. Murphy: I do not think this is a question of geography. I will try to make this as clear as I can. We are talking about the application of a principle.
The Acting Chairman: That is within a national park?
Mr. Murphy: That is what this bill does. We would like to see that exactly the same as it would be applied elsewhere in terms of making those decisions. Otherwise, we will be left with the question of how one makes those decisions. For the reasons we have outlined here, we do not think the criteria would hold up very well and one would end up not knowing with any degree of certainty how one would proceed.
Senator Eyton: Your submissions are short and understandable. Where did your submissions come from? Did it originate from a subcommittee or a group of members? I would be curious to know how much support is present within the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Murphy: There are two aspects of our work here. First, within the context of the camber itself and the work we do, we have a committee of members who look at environmental issues. It is a widespread group of members who are part of a larger group of business people. My colleague, Mr. Campbell, has been integrally involved in a group that we have dubbed SPPD.
Mr. Campbell: It is the Working Group on Science and Public Policy Development.
Mr. Murphy: That is what we are talking about in terms of the application of science to decision making. It is a very widespread group of business people. We just happen to act as a coordinator for that group. We have a sense of very widespread agreement with the position that you see expressed here.
Senator Christensen: What is your position on the concept of establishing marine parks throughout the country in our three different oceans? Is this a good idea? Should we be doing it?
Mr. Murphy: That is a good question, but I do not think I have a very good answer. I will be perfectly frank. I think our organization is interested at this stage in the consistency of the application of the definition. We have not looked extensively at the real substance of the bill. I would hesitate to offer an opinion on it because it would be probably a personal one and not one well thought through. Therefore, I shall refrain from doing that.
Senator Christensen: We had Mr. Lee here, looking at the process of how to establish these areas. It is clear that an area is selected and it is taken to the people there, the commercial people and those who live there, to decide whether it is something they want in the area. If it were deemed that they did not want it, it did not happen.
I was wondering what the chamber's thoughts would be on the concept. Is this a good economic idea? Is it in the best interests of Canada?
Mr. Murphy: As I was mentioning, I do not really feel that I can offer a specific opinion on that issue. I would add, though, that from the standpoint of any piece of legislation, particularly important framework legislation — which, after all, is the kind of legislation that allows for the terms and conditions, the rules of the game, to be understood by all on a going-forward basis — it is very important in ensuring that in legislation such as that proposed in Bill C-10, using the terms and conditions established by the legislation, that those stakeholders directly affected, whether it be the business community or others, always have the opportunity to participate in those decisions that will be made under the legislation. To the extent that this legislation would do that, that is a positive thing. However, I shall have to refrain from commenting on the broader aspects of the bill.
The Acting Chairman: Thank you for your interest.
The committee adjourned.