Proceedings of the Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 3 - Evidence of December 4, 2002
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 4, 2002
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 12:22 p.m. to consider that the Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be composed of twelve members, four of whom shall constitute a quorum, to which shall be referred, on the order of the Senate, bills, messages, petitions, inquiries, papers and other matters relating to fisheries and oceans generally; and that within 150 days, the Leader of the Government shall provide the Senate with a comprehensive government response to the report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence entitled: ``Defence of North America: A Canadian Responsibility,'' tabled on August 30, 2002; and to consider a draft report.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we will begin.
Senator Stratton: Point of order, if I may. I appreciate that you are a busy lady, but we are 23 minutes past the hour.
The Chairman: I apologize.
Senator Stratton: If this were the first occasion, I would accept that and understand. However, what I am more afraid of is that it becomes habit and then everyone starts turning up at quarter after for a meeting that should start at noon. As we have only an hour and one half, we should respect the 12 o'clock start.
The Chairman: I agree and I apologize. Our own national caucus went on until just now and I stayed to the bitter end, which I should not have done.
Senator Comeau you are here to tell us why you want to change the name of the committee.
The Honourable Gerald J. Comeau: I prepared some notes to explain why we are asking the name to be changed. Canada is a great maritime nation with an important stake in furthering its ocean interests. The country has three ocean borders with the world, the world's longest coastline and the second largest continental shelf in the world. Eight provinces and three territories border on salt water. Canada's oceans support diverse and growing economic activities including, fishery, aqua culture, tourism, ship, offshore oil and gas development and mining. Canada's three oceans are becoming busier than ever. There are many competing interests, uses and ocean-related activities that impact on the marine environment. Somehow, these must be reconciled.
In the past, there was a tendency to look at the fishery as if it were separate from other ocean users and to look at a given fishery as separate from other fisheries, thus ignoring the connections between one species of fish and the other, involving some activity diverse from fisheries. Canada's first ocean policy dates back to 1973. In 1979, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans was created from elements that had functioned as the fishery and marine fishery services in the previously entitled Department of Fisheries and the Environment.
In more recent years, the DFO has noticeably changed the way it does business. It has moved from being focused largely on the management of the fishery to being increasingly concerned with managing, balancing and integrating a broad range of oceans and inland waters. The transition has accelerated significantly since the proclamation of the Canada's Ocean Act in 1997.
Bill C-26, the Oceans Act, was referred to and scrutinized by the Fisheries Committee in November of 1996. The Oceans Act provides a framework for ocean management initiatives and the backdrop for Canada's ocean strategy, which is based on the principles of sustainable development, integrated management and a precautionary approach. These are matters that fisheries committees have wrestled with since its creation in 1995. The oceans strategy is based on the premise that oceans must be managed holistically.
In sum, Canada's fisheries now fall under two major statutes: The Fisheries Act and the Oceans Act. Fine tuning the committee's name by adding the word ``oceans'' would not in any way increase the scope or the activities of the committee or its studies. We are not trying to add to our work but, rather, to reflect what we are now doing.
Public interest in oceans is growing. Polling has suggested that Canadians are concerned about the ocean environment. The importance of the concept of oceans is found not only in Canada but also in other countries. For example, in the United States an oceans act was passed in 2000, and two high profile commissions on oceans policy and a similar oceans commission funded by the charitable trust have been active.
The creation of a new regime governing Canada's coastal planning of activities affecting oceans is one of the programs stemming from the Oceans Act. There are three types of marine areas under federal administration. We now have the marine protected areas, which is administered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; the national marine and conservation areas, which is administered by Canadian Heritage; and marine wildlife areas, which is administered by Environment Canada.
More than 20 federal departments have mandates affecting our oceans. Therefore, the change in the name of the committee to fisheries and oceans would constitute a de facto recognition of the committee's past, current and future work.
Over the past year, our main focus of study has been on an area that is not even called ``fish.'' It is called ``habitat.'' Therefore, we are proposing that our committee be recognized as having this dual responsibility, both for fisheries and oceans.
Senator Stratton: If I may, senator, there is a Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is that correct?
Senator Comeau: Yes.
Senator Stratton: Do you have the unanimous agreement by your committee that this name change is required?
Senator Comeau: Yes. After discussion in committee, the committee passed a unanimous motion that we request a name change of the Rules and Privileges Committee.
Senator Joyal: What is the name of the corresponding committee in the other place?
Senator Comeau: The House Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Senator Joyal: They have both ``fisheries'' and ``oceans'' as does the department.
Senator Comeau: That has been the case since about 1986 or 1987. It was formerly called the Standing Committee on Fisheries, Forestry and the Environment. In 1987, it became the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Senator Joyal: Your point is an important one regarding the issue of fisheries now in the overall context of the habitat for fish and for other resources of the sea.
Would this change mean that, if a bill came to us which dealt with environmental issues in relation to oceans, such as a bill to deal with pollution by oil tankers, would that bill be referred to your committee or to another committee of the Senate?
Senator Comeau: I would suggest not. I think that issues dealing with the transportation of certain goods would still be referred to the Transport Committee. Issues that deal with the environment should still go to the department that deals with that. In this case it would probably be the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, as was done with the bill containing amendments to the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, which was referred to the Energy Committee.
I would suggest that the Fisheries, and proposed oceans, committee still deal with items related to fisheries.
Senator Joyal: Let us take a hypothesis that Canada took an initiative related to the law of the sea. Would that go to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs?
Senator Comeau: It would probably go to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs because we would not have amongst our members people with the background knowledge required to deal with legal issues. That was the case with the Marine Conservation Areas Act. We do not have the background to look at parks- related issues. I believe that we should continue the practice that we should not, as a committee, deal with those kinds of items, whether it be transport items, shipping of goods and so on. The best example I could give would relate to military issues, because ships travel across an ocean. I do not think we should look at military issues just because the navy has a ship.
Senator Joyal: What about the marine parks that could be established within some sections of our coastline? Would that go to your committee?
Senator Comeau: Actually, the marine park bill was referred to Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, and that bill was passed.
The Chairman: I would just point out that there is already a lot of overlap in the subject matters that are dealt with by various committees. It is up to the leadership to decide which is the best committee to deal with a matter.
Senator Andreychuk: Senator Joyal is on the same track as I am. Your terms of reference in dealing with the Oceans Act might lead you to encroach on environmental, transport, legal and port issues. You are distinctly saying you will only touch oceans if fish are involved. Is that correct?
Senator Comeau: That has been our tendency. It is only if there is an impact on the fisheries resources.
Senator Rompkey: Marine life.
Senator Comeau: Marine life is a much better expression. We would not want to become involved in issues dealing with, for example, tourism and oceans, unless the tourism activity encroached on the habitat of the fish, and the fishery itself.
Senator Andreychuk: Would your terms of reference reflect that? I think the term ``oceans'' is misleading, and would mean that you will take over the entire jurisdiction of oceans. I would want to be assured that environmental issues still stay with the Environment Committee and the legal issues with the Legal Committee. If you are determined to have this name of Fisheries and Oceans, then the only way to identify that you will only deal with marine life is to have terms of reference that state that.
Senator Comeau: I am not too familiar with the expression ``terms of reference.''
Senator Andreychuk: Every committee has terms of reference, or should have.
The Chairman: It is in the rules. For the present Fisheries Committee, it states:
The Senate Committee on Fisheries, composed of twelve members, four of whom shall constitute a quorum, to which shall be referred, on order of the Senate, bills, messages, petitions, inquiries, papers and other matters relating to fisheries generally.
In effect, we would just be adding the word ``oceans'' in there in two places.
Senator Andreychuk: I am suggesting that you should then talk about ``marine life,'' if that is a better term than ``fisheries,'' and send the message to other committees and to everyone that this is really as far as you intend to go.
Senator Comeau: I think the message would be sent by way of our request for our order of reference, which is generally quite well-scrutinized every time we ask for an order of reference. As a matter of fact it was scrutinized this year, and we were asked to quietly tone down the breadth and scope of what we were requesting to do. We complied with that request, by the way.
Senator Rompkey: I want to support the initiative quite strongly. I think it is something perhaps that we should have done and we certainly should do it now. I want to say why.
I think the main word that was used was ``holistic.'' I think we have to view the ocean in that way. I want to support this because of what is currently happening in my particular area. On Monday night, I went to a meeting that was unique in my parliamentary experience. I have never seen it happen in the 30 years that I have been here. Every politician from Newfoundland of every description, party and jurisdiction, met here in Ottawa. The reason for the meeting was the cod fishery, the demise of the cod and what that will do, not just to our province, but to many provinces in the Atlantic.
We met as politicians from our province. I had never seen it happen before. I say that to give you an idea of the importance of that issue at the moment. You cannot treat cod alone. It is not just the cod that is being affected. Marine life is being affected and we must find out why. The Senate committee must become involved in that issue and help us to find out why marine life is being affected.
You cannot deal with one species in isolation. You must deal with species in relation to each other and in relation to the dangers to habitat, for example, oil. We have seen what is happening to wildlife on the coast of Spain, if not necessarily the fish. The Fisheries Committee cannot limit itself to fish, because fish live in a habitat occupied by other living things and there are dangers to that habitat from other sources. I think we have to deal with the issue holistically and we have to move beyond the concept of fish alone to the concept of the ocean.
When I first came to Ottawa in 1972, my first job was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment, who also dealt with fisheries. In 1972, Jack Davis was the Minister of the Environment, and fisheries were part of that department. They always tagged Newfoundlanders to assist that department, because it was thought that we knew something about fish.
I support the idea. It is something that we should perhaps have done before, but we should certainly do it now.
Senator Comeau: Senator Rompkey just raised an extremely important point. By way of illustration, let me relate something that is currently happening in the U.S. They have an area off the coast of Louisiana that they call the ``dead zone.'' This is caused by the outflows from the rivers that flow off the Louisiana coast. There is so much pesticide runoff and so many pollutants running off from the rivers that it has created what they call this dead zone. These are the kinds of issues that I think have to be dealt with in a holistic way if we are going to look at fish and the habitat in which they live.
We must be mindful of where some of the dangers are coming from. We have plenty on the plate at the Fisheries Committee without having to go into other areas, even though the dead zone, in this case off Louisiana, is being caused by something that would ordinarily be considered as only an agricultural issue. It is more than that; we have to look at it both as agriculturalists and as people interested in our oceans.
Senator Corbin: I know a few things about fisheries. I was Jack Davis' Parliamentary Secretary when the Department of Fisheries was converted to the Department of Fisheries and the Environment in 1970. Jack Davis was a great minister. He always invited his parliamentary secretaries to every briefing possible so that we knew what was going on.
Senator Comeau, I understand the general mandate which we discussed earlier. However, are you getting away from the inland fisheries, freshwater fisheries? When I started out in this business, inland fisheries were still an important consideration for members of Parliament. There were support programs for Manitoba fishermen and Great Lakes fishermen. There were conservation efforts and efforts concerning the control of the lamprey eel. We talked a lot about migratory patterns of anadromous fish like salmon, shad and eel, which is sometimes fished in the St. Lawrence River. We also talked about sturgeon, which comes up into brackish water.
I attended one of your meetings a couple of years ago. At that time we heard from a concerned group from Ontario who spoke about the sports fishery as it related to a quarry project that would have, in their opinion, destroyed the basin.
I noticed that in the terms of reference you do not specifically refer to inland fisheries. What importance do you yourself attach to the problem?
Senator Comeau: You are absolutely right, senator, the inland fishery is an extremely important component in many inland parts of Canada. Something not readily known by many Canadians is that it creates a large number of jobs inland. Therefore, we attach a great deal of importance to it.
Under our terms of reference where it refers to fish, that is where it falls. The actual administration of the fishery in inland waters, that is, the quotas and so on, is done by the province.
Senator Corbin: That is a delegated power from the federal government to some provinces in some cases.
Senator Comeau: Yes, that is right.
However, our interest lies with the habitat, for instance, the impact of pollutants on the habitat of the fish. We ask whether the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is accomplishing its mandate under its terms of reference to protect the habitat of the fish. In other words, we ask if there is pollution going into the fishery that should be controlled and so on?
About a year and a half ago we completed a report entitled, ``Selected Themes on Canada's Freshwater and Northern Fisheries.'' We attach a great deal of importance to the inland fishery.
Senator Corbin: Will that continue?
Senator Comeau: Absolutely, yes.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Corbin. I would also point out also that in the 1980s Senator Marshall's committee produced a report on freshwater fish. Sturgeon are not just found in brackish water. They are found all the way up the Ottawa River and can be found in a land-locked lake about 100-miles upstream from here.
Senator Corbin: I was speaking for my New Brunswick surgeon.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: Oceans make up a large part of our national parks. An example of one such park is Long Beach in British Columbia, near Vancouver Island. Ninety per cent of the park surface area is ocean, with the remaining area comprised of numerous islands. Would this park fall under your jurisdiction?
Senator Comeau: No, not parks. We would leave this to the jurisdiction of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources.
However, National Marine Conservation Areas have means of controlling catches in very specific parts of the oceans, the reason being to protect fish stocks.
Senator Gauthier: If an ecological disaster were to occur, for example, if a ship began to leak massive amounts of oil, would that not be of some concern to your committee?
Senator Comeau: Of course, we would be concerned, and devastated. However, the task of investigating this type of disaster would fall to other committees or agencies. A disaster of this magnitude is now happening off the coast of Spain.
Canadians should perhaps look into this situation to ensure that a similar disaster does not occur in Canadian waters. Our committee lacks expertise in this area.
Senator Gauthier: Does your mandate include the Great Lakes?
Senator Comeau: Yes.
Senator Gauthier: Jurisdiction over the Great Lakes is shared between the federal and U.S. governments. These waters fall under international jurisdiction.
Senator Comeau: That is true for fish stocks.
Senator Gauthier: We also have the International Water tribunal.
Senator Comeau: That is correct.
Senator Gauthier: Does Canada take part in the work of this Tribunal?
Senator Comeau: We are involved from the standpoint of examining issues such as the invasion of exotic species like lamprey eels and zebra mussels, to ascertain the impact of these invasive species on the marine life normally found in our waters. Of course we would like to see some control measures in place. If we find that no such measures are being proposed, we will try to recommend ways of preventing the introduction of exotic species into these waters.
[English]
Senator Smith: I will be brief. I think there has been a logical policy argument made for this matter. Therefore, I am pretty comfortable about it. The House of Commons has already done it. The committee is unanimous. I do not know that we need to dwell on it.
Do we assume that the wording in the rules would automatically be changed to include the words ``and oceans''?
The Chairman: We would have to report to the Senate that the rule be changed to add those words. The report of this committee as to the change would have to be accepted by the Senate before the rules can be changed.
Senator Smith: In the future, when some bill is referred to us and there is some uncertainty about which committee it should be referred to, would the house leadership make the call?
The Chairman: The house leadership does it. I should point out that committees are bound by their orders of reference, not by the mandate in the Senate rules. Whatever order of reference is handed to the committee by the house leadership, that is what they are bound by.
I understand that the current name of the department that you deal with is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Senator Comeau: That is correct.
The Chairman: Basically, it is legislation that comes out of that department with which the committee would deal. We do not need more limiting words on the mandate.
Senator Smith: I am comfortable with it. I would like to see it proceed.
The Chairman: We shall proceed in camera at this point for the purpose of consideration of a draft report. We will now hand out a draft report that does precisely what Senator Comeau has asked us to do. I think we are agreed that that is what should happen.
The committee continued in camera.