Bill S-15 (Historical)

Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act

An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Canada National Parks Act to create Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada.
It also amends the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to prohibit drilling for petroleum in Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada or within one nautical mile seaward of Sable Island’s low-water mark, to restrict surface access rights provided for under that Act and to provide for the issuance of licences and authorizations with respect to activities that may be carried out in Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada.
Finally, it makes consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.
Part 2 amends the Canada National Parks Act to provide that the dedication of the national parks of Canada to the people of Canada is subject to any Act of Parliament.
It also amends the description of the commercial zones for the Community of Field in Yoho National Park of Canada in Schedule 4 to that Act and of the leasehold boundary of the Marmot Basin Ski Area in Jasper National Park of Canada in Schedule 5 to that Act.

Bill S-15—Time Allocation

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite all hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate.

The hon. member for Halifax.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have about a minute for a question. Is that correct?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I have been allotting a little bit of extra time for the first question, but after that, yes, I expect the questions and the answers to be approximately one minute.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, often when time allocation is moved in the House, we, the NDP, the official opposition, stands. We are angry, because we find time allocation to be an abusive process for shutting down debate.

However, I am not angry today. I am actually standing here with sadness, because there was a legitimate attempt by the NDP to work with the government on this bill to get it through the House. This is a really important piece of legislation about a park, Sable Island park, that will actually be in the riding of Halifax, and I want to support this bill--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There is just far too much noise in the House. A number of you do not intend to stay for the full half hour. Those of you who are carrying on conversations, would you please take them outside the chamber? We are having a very hard time hearing the member.

The member for Halifax.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I want to support this bill. I want this bill to get through. I want park protection for Sable Island. That is the thing I want most.

We opened a door for the Conservatives to say, "Let us talk about how we can expedite this and how we can get it through the House together and work on some of the problems together". We opened that door, and now the Conservatives are slamming it in our faces.

I am not angry standing here. I am profoundly sad. I apologize to the constituents of Halifax for thinking I could actually work with the Conservatives and that we could move something along together. I apologize for my naïveté.

My question to the minister is this: Why are they doing this? What it says to me is that there are other things I cannot trust in this bill. It says to me that maybe I should not be supporting this bill, because I cannot trust what the Conservatives put forward when I cannot even trust them to work together to get this bill through the House. I think there are other things in this bill I cannot support.

Why is the minister doing this? Why is he using time allocation?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, and I have spoken to my colleague about this on a number of occasions, our government appreciates the support we have received from other parties, both in the House and in the Senate. There was an agreement with regard to the number of speakers we would put up for the bill, which is largely embraced not only by all parties in Parliament but by all parties in the Nova Scotia legislature and beyond. I am talking about first nations, environmental groups and others, who for two years have considered and celebrated the action that has finally been taken, after 50 years.

This legislation, this protection of an iconic piece of Canadian nature, has been 50 years in the making. As we address many other bills in the final weeks of this session, the time has come for the House to vote.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is yet another sad day. This is not about Bill S-15. This is about a Conservative majority government under the Prime Minister and his attitude and his lack of respect for due parliamentary process.

The Prime Minister, more than any other in the history of Canada, has demonstrated borderline contempt in not allowing members the opportunity to address important issues. Canadians have a right to know that parliamentarians have been afforded the opportunity to speak and the opportunity to see a bill go through a natural process. The Conservative government has incorporated in its standard process as a majority government something that is totally abhorrent and disrespectful toward democracy.

My question is not to the minister. My question is to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons or to the Prime Minister. Why has the government decided to take such strong action with time allocation, unprecedented in the history of our country, to deny members the opportunity to debate?

If there were an ounce of good-faith negotiation, that is what should be taking place. We should have negotiation through House leaders so that there is a proper procedure to pass legislation through the House of Commons. Why is the government not doing what it should be doing in terms of preserving democracy inside the House of Commons?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government embraces the concept of parliamentary debate. Unfortunately, the agreement that existed among parties seems to have fallen apart, and the time has come to vote.

I would remind my hon. colleagues that the passage of this legislation to protect Canada's 43rd national park reserve involves and requires mirrored legislation in the House and in the Nova Scotia legislature. Mirrored legislation was introduced there on April 24. It achieved second reading on April 25 and third reading on May 6. It received royal assent on May 10.

There has been a fulsome debate in the Senate. We had an agreement for debate in the House, which, for opposition reasons, has fallen apart. We are prepared today to take questions about the material content of Bill S-15 and to proceed to the time allocation vote.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that we are not in the Senate, and we have had no debate on this.

I am motivated to remark on the comments by my colleague from Halifax, who asked what is really going on in relation to this bill.

If we look at the preamble to the bill, it talks about amending it to ensure that, for the first time, I think, the Canada National Parks Act is subservient to any other legislation of Canada. Why is this being talked about in a bill that is supposed to set up a new reserve? Why would that vehicle be used to open a debate about the whole nature of how strong the commitment to national parks is in this country?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, there has been debate. Debate began this past week. We were prepared to continue and conclude that debate today, until the opposition changed the terms of the agreement.

This bill, as I have said, is mirrored in legislation passed in the Nova Scotia legislature. We agreed that there were some clarifications that needed to be made on the record, which I am quite prepared to make, regarding the low-impact activity that will still be allowed on the island after it becomes a national park reserve.

Time is short in this legislative session. This has been well examined over the past two years, and it is time for the House to stand and vote.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative ministers have come up with a new argument for their time allocation motions. They say that the bill has been on track for years. When speaking about a bill on the railways, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities recently told us that we had already been discussing it for six or seven years. Now, the Minister of the Environment is telling us that we have been discussing this bill for two years.

Then why now? The parliamentary session is winding down and now suddenly there is some pressing need to pass these bills even though the Conservatives have been in power since 2006. If it has been such a long time, then it seems to me that we should have had formal discussions and debate on all these bills sooner.

In closing, I want to correct the Minister of the Environment. He said there was agreement among all parties about the number of speakers. I can assure you that he certainly did not talk to the Bloc Québécois to find out when we might speak. It is funny because when they need us they do not talk to us and we are a non-recognized party and when they do not need us then we no longer exist.

I would remind the House and all parties that all 308 members here are legitimately and democratically elected, from the Prime Minister to the ministers, to every other member, regardless of where they sit.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions with regard to procedures of this House should be conducted elsewhere. As you have informed the House, we are in this period to discuss the creation of Canada's 43rd national park.

In the 2000 Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada made a commitment to create significant new protected areas. This legislation has been in the works for more than 50 years, starting with school children who wrote to protect the famous wild horses of Sable Island. In 1967, the government of the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker passed regulations protecting these horses, which planted the original seeds for the long-term protection of Sable Island.

The importance of the conservation gains of creating this new national treasure, this new national park reserve, cannot be underestimated. Sable Island is home to 350 species of migratory birds, the breeding ground for virtually the world's entire population of the Ipswich sparrow, and turning Sable Island into a national park would ensure its protection for generations to come.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments today. I wonder if he could comment a bit on one of the oldest established national parks, that being Yoho National Park, and some of the regulatory changes in this bill that would affect Yoho, and explain to the people how it would be a positive impact.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation does extend beyond the headline news, the good news of the creation of a Sable Island national park, and deals with the contemporizing and updating of a number of the management plans with regard to some of our most historic national parks in the western mountains. These changes would all conform with the National Parks Act and with the need to regularly re-examine the various land management plans, the various protections of habitat for the wildlife, the flora and the fauna of these traditional national parks bases, as we will in the decades ahead regularly revisit the management practices the 43rd national park, Sable Island.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret that time allocation is being used on this bill. I sympathize enormously with the statement from the hon. member for Halifax. It is critical that we protect Sable Island properly. A Sable Island national park is something we all want, but not at the expense of undermining the integrity of the national parks system by allowing the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to have rights to pass regulations that affect a national park. This is unprecedented.

Contrary to what the minister just said, environmental groups have contacted me from Nova Scotia, deeply concerned. They do not want the bill to pass in its current form, and they want to protect the integrity of the national parks system.

It requires full debate. Abbreviating that debate and pushing it through at the last minute is not only an affront to democracy. It is an affront to the integrity of the national parks system across this country.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleague for her input and her observations.

However, I would remind her, again, that in the consideration of this bill, in the public consultations, including consultations with environmental NGOs and with first nations in Nova Scotia, there has been widespread consensus on exactly how and under what conditions, stipulations and regulations this new national park would be created.

This bill was introduced in the Nova Scotia Legislature on April 24, second reading was on April 25, third reading was on May 6 and it received royal assent on May 10. In debate, the Liberal House leader said:

...we look forward to this bill moving on to the Law Amendments Committee and making its way through the House and...in conjunction with the federal government, we will soon see the official declaration of Sable Island as Canada's 43rd...park.

The same was heard from the Progressive Conservatives, and of course from the NDP government, wishing us well and hoping this could be passed into law and proclaimed this year.

With regard to the agreement with the oil and gas industry, this is in fact a protection of the island. We would not be in this House today considering the creation of Sable Island as a fully protected national park without the initiative and co-operation of the oil and gas sector. They have agreed to forego leases held for some years, potentially lucrative leases.

The agreement provides for the park to extend to the beaches at low tide with a further one nautical mile buffer zone to prevent any offshore activity. The foremost expert on Sable Island, Zoe Lucas, has been very forthright in saying that the limited activity in the past and what will be permitted in the future is of very low impact and is not expected to disrupt either the habitat or any of the species on the island.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not very satisfied with the minister's answers. I am also not very satisfied with his characterization of what has been going on here.

The minister knows full well that the NDP has been trying to work with government for the past two weeks to try to get this bill to committee today. We have not held up those discussions or those negotiations. That is not what the NDP has done.

Today we walk in and find out that there is going to be time allocation on this bill. I am telling the minister that this completely undermines any trust we thought we had with the government. It makes me second guess my own judgment here.

How can the minister stand here and say that things have gone off the rails and that discussions have broken down, when he knows that is not true? Why is the government doing this? Why is it slamming an open door in our face? Why does the government refuse to negotiate and work co-operatively to actually get legislation through this House?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again I thank my colleague for her questions.

I am not going to go into the mechanics of agreements that we thought had been made with regard to the number of speeches from all parties in the House. I will be very direct in saying that there are no surprises in this legislation. The legislation has been very well examined in a variety of fora over the past two years.

It is time now to stand and either vote for the creation of another jewel in the crown of Canada's protected spaces or not.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is not about why the NDP would decide to delay this when the NDP Government of Nova Scotia has asked us to pass it as quickly as possible. That is a question the NDP members need to ask themselves.

I am someone who has been on Sable Island at least a couple of dozen times. Other than the Minister of the Environment and the member for West Nova, I do not think any other members in this place have been on Sable Island.

It is a unique part of the world. It is a unique part of Atlantic Canada. We are going to have some low-impact activity allowed on the island.

Can the minister explain why this is unique to this agreement?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a unique agreement. As I began to remark earlier, we would not be in a position to celebrate the creation of this new national park were it not for the co-operation and the initiative of the oil and gas sector.

In decades past, there were a number of petroleum wells drilled on this island before the companies were moved to step back, to abandon their leases to the greater interest of conservation in our country. However, there are probably about 10 wellheads of capped-off wells on the island, which because of the constantly moving sands of the island, are from time to time exposed and require inspection.

This is one of the definitions of the light activity that would be allowed. Again, as I said, Halifax researcher Zoe Lucas, who has spent decades on the island and is the foremost authority on the flora and fauna of the island, has said that she has experienced in the past only the absolutely best behaviour of the oil and gas sector, and she expects to in the future.

I know some of my colleagues have expressed concern about this because of their historic definition of the word “seismic”, but there is also provision for the latest in seismic technology, again in conjunction with past wells drilled on the island, to use this new and non-intrusive technology. Again, Zoe Lucas has said that is not intrusive and does not present a threat to either the habitat or the species on the island.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives curtailed debate twice this morning, once again limiting members' speaking time. We want to talk. Enough is enough. There are problems with the manipulation of public opinion. The members opposite are saying we do not want to discuss this issue. Hold on a minute. We do. The minister and the teams are in the process of discussing this matter.

Sable Island is a wonderful place. There was even a film made on this island, where birds come to nest. I think it is called Les oiseaux des prés or something like that. The island also has wild horses.

Of course we completely agree that this island must be protected. Environmental groups and aboriginal people also agree.

Yet where can we discuss this type of issue if not in the House? We must discuss it here, and the Conservatives must stop limiting members' speaking time.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and her observations, and she is right that it is a magnificently unique piece of Canada. I had the great honour just last summer to make my first visit to the island in its entirety. Environment Canada has a major weather station on the island, which would remain on the island as it is transformed into a national park.

There is some cleanup to do from decades past, with regard to an old fuel storage facility and old light towers no longer in use. However, it is indeed a very moving experience to wander the 42-kilometre-long sand spit, some 300 kilometres northeast of Halifax, and observe these wild horses. Whether from vessels coming to North America or Spanish vessels going to Latin America, the precise origin of these horses is unknown. It is amazing that they have survived, numbering several hundred, over these years in such a barren space along with, as my colleague observed, several hundred species of birds and, from time to time depending on extreme weather events, birds and butterflies carried by hurricanes to the island.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I am amazed to hear the minister and many others before him talk about the beauty of the island and the beauty of his bill, when we should be spending the half-hour that we have talking about the Standing Orders and the 42nd time allocation motion—if I have counted correctly—that the government has imposed.

Over the past several months and even years, we have become used to the fact that the government thinks that the laws and the rules are there for others to follow. When laws and rules do not fit in with the Conservatives' agenda, they change them.

My question is very simple. Should we expect a bill to change the Standing Orders of the House to be introduced in the next few days or can we expect the Conservatives to one day follow the rules?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have remarked, a debate over procedure in the House is perhaps warranted, but not in this time space. Failing a question to the point, it may be worthwhile to recognize that Parks Canada, over the years, has been widely recognized as a world leader in conservation.

We received the World Wildlife fund gift to the earth for inspiring leadership, conservation achievements. A couple of years ago we received the Royal Canadian Geographic Society gold medal award, with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Dehcho First Nation, for expansion of the great national park in the Northwest Territories, Nahanni.

I was honoured to receive this year the Polar Bear International Champion of Polar Bears award for leadership and conservation work in Wapusk National Park in Manitoba. I am sure that in the decades to come, Parks Canada will receive any number of awards in recognition of this great conservation order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Conservatives have botched a number of pieces of legislation by trying to ram them through the House. This is the 42nd time they have invoked closure. I do not think these excuses they have put forward constantly wash with the public anymore.

The member for Edmonton—St. Albert was very accurate when he exposed the seamy underbelly of the corrupt and corrosive government. He talked about ministerial opulence. He talked about the spending scandal. He said that the Conservative Party had morphed into one it once mocked, referencing Liberal spending scandals, arrogance and sense of entitlement that we saw previously.

He said as well, “My constituents are gravely disappointed. My constituents demand better. I no longer recognize the party I joined”. That is the member for Edmonton—St. Albert. There are a lot of Conservatives across the country are asking those same questions when they see the Senate spending scandal and the arrogance of the government invoking closure 42 times.

My question for the minister is very simple. How does he think the government has any credibility to force now for the 42nd time, a sad record of Canadian history, closure in the House of Commons.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for making the effort, but I will speak to the point of this period of time and to the good news, the creation of Canada's 43rd national park.

A number of people have asked me why the Government of Canada would protect such a remote, hard to access piece of sand, a 42-kilometre length of sand so far off of Nova Scotia's shores. The answer is that it is remote. A number of our protected spaces are not easy to get to, but every year, and under the new national parks administration, some 50 to 250 people will be able to visit the island for science, research, light touristic visits, as well as to service and support the Meteorological Service of Canada weather station, which is placed there.

In the past seven years, our government has added over 50% to the land area of protected spaces in Canada. We have now protected about 10% of Canada's total land space. We are working in the months and the years ahead to protect even more of our unique natural spaces.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #741

Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion that Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment has 18 minutes left for debate on this issue.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. Chief Government Whip for his support. It is such a pleasure to be here tonight.

I was actually quite impressed with some of the testimony that came out the last time we were speaking to this bill, on Friday. I have geared my speech to address some of the issues that came up. I looked a bit through the Senate committee testimony that came up as well as some of our technical briefing documents, and I hope to address some of my colleagues' concerns that were raised on Friday.

The critical points that were raised on Friday related to some of the issues around seismic activities on the island as well as aboriginal consultations and inclusion within the bill. Questions were raised around Parks Canada consulting the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia. I can assure this House that we are taking important measures with respect to the Mi'kmaq, that we have consulted and will continue to consult them and that Parks Canada is continuing to work with them.

In designating Sable Island as a national park reserve, the Government of Canada would be protecting the asserted aboriginal rights entitled to this area. A national park reserve designation, which is clearly defined under the Canada National Parks Act, is used where there are outstanding claims by aboriginal peoples regarding aboriginal rights and titles and these claims have been accepted by Canada for negotiation.

In her remarks, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona expressed her concern that, while the preamble refers to the Mi'kmaq's asserted rights and title, the bill itself does not. I just want to assure the House that this is standard when it comes to designating national park reserves under the Canada National Parks Act, in that specific reference is not made to the aboriginal people claiming rights and title to a specific national park reserve. Rather, it is the designation as a reserve that protects their asserted rights. When it comes to concerns over the integrity of the national parks system, the Canada National Parks Act is also clear that a national park reserve is protected just as much as a national park, all the while respecting the assertions of aboriginal or treaty rights. It is not a lesser category of national park. Parks such as Nahanni in the north, Mingan Archipelago in Quebec and the Gulf Islands in British Columbia are all currently designated as national park reserves while we work with the aboriginal people who use these areas to finalize an agreement through which they would co-operatively manage these areas in collaboration with Parks Canada.

To be clear, we will not move to designate Sable Island as a national park of Canada until we have concluded our consultations and negotiations with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia.

In fact, to illustrate this point, when our government first took office in 2006, Labrador's Torngat Mountains was then designated as a national park reserve. That year, the hon. member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove signed a park impacts and benefit statement with the president of Makivik Corporation representing the Nunavik Inuit of northern Quebec who had a claim to the area in Labrador covered by the park reserve. Only with the signing of that agreement did the government move to formally transition the reserve to what is now the Torngat Mountains National Park of Canada.

With respect to consultations, in May 2010, Parks Canada, as required under the consultation protocol established under the made-in-Nova Scotia process, wrote to the Assembly of Nova Scotia Chiefs, the Nova Scotia Office of Aboriginal Affairs and the Native Council of Nova Scotia requesting consultation on plans to designate Sable Island as a national park.

In November 2010, the Mi'kmaq people wrote to Parks Canada confirming that they were in agreement that Sable Island be designated as a national park by bringing it under the Canada National Parks Act by an act of Parliament. They also stated that they looked forward to working together with Parks Canada in the development of a management plan for Sable Island and other opportunities for the Mi'kmaq to be meaningfully and actively engaged in the vision and management direction for Sable Island as a national park.

Consultation with the Mi'kmaq during the designation process would continue until the final step in the establishment process, namely designation of Sable Island as a national park. Once a final accord had been negotiated by Canada, Nova Scotia and the Mi'kmaq through the made-in-Nova Scotia process, Parks Canada would undertake the necessary steps as defined under the final accord to transition Sable Island from a national park reserve to a national park.

Parks Canada enjoys a productive relationship with the Mi'kmaq. Parks Canada and the Mi'kmaq are close to concluding a contribution agreement, the purpose of which is to enable the Mi'kmaq to conduct research and consult with member communities to develop a thorough understanding of the cultural and historical connection of the Mi'kmaq people to Sable Island.

The results of this project would inform the future governance and advisory approach for a Sable Island national park reserve and would build practical working relationships with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia. This work would provide an important foundation for the participation of the Mi'kmaq in the planning and management of the national park reserve.

As we have heard, Sable Island is located in one of the largest offshore hydrocarbon basins in North America. I know that during the debate last Friday, concern was expressed about the future of Sable Island and the petroleum activities that may be permitted within this region. I believe that the Government of Canada and Nova Scotia have negotiated an approach to Sable Island that balances conservation and the fact that this is a large hydrocarbon development basin.

All petroleum-related activities in Nova Scotia's offshore, including on and around Sable Island, are administered under the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. As the preamble to this bill makes clear, section 4 of the accord act states that the act takes precedent over all legislation that applies to the offshore area, including Sable Island.

Therefore, it is into this legislative framework, put in place by previous parliaments, that we must fit this new national park reserve. To that end, through Bill S-15, we would amend the accord act to, for the first time, legally prohibit drilling from the surface of Sable Island. This is a point that should not be lost on this House because this would be of huge benefit to protecting this very unique piece of ecosystem and land that is so dear to all Canadians for the future. It is one of the core purposes of putting this bill forward to begin with. We would also put in place a buffer zone from the low-water boundary of the national park reserve out to one nautical mile where the drilling ban would also apply.

Many of my colleagues here have raised concern about the definition of “low-impact petroleum-related activities”. I think this is a fair discussion to have, because we want to make sure we get this right. Therefore, I will give a bit of background on my understanding of what this means, based on Senate committee testimony as well as discussions that the Nova Scotia government had, I believe, in the development of its bill related to this issue, because I think this should be considered, should this bill be supported by my colleagues and brought to committee stage.

Bill S-15 lists several low-impact petroleum-related activities that might be permitted on the island, including seismic. While some equate the word seismic with blasting and explosion, this is not the case in this situation. Low-impact seismic, as described by Mr. Stuart Pinks, chief executive officer of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, stated:

It is...emitting a sound source that, if it was done on the island, would travel down through the sand...through the rock formations, and some of the sound or energy waves are actually reflected back up. There are listening devices that will pick that up.

This activity was conducted on the island once before in the last several decades. In 1991, Mobil Oil Canada conducted seismic work on and around Sable Island. The company agreed to follow a strict code of practice that was developed in collaboration with Ms. Zoe Lucas, a long-time resident expert on Sable Island, and with the Green Horse Society, which is the leading environmental non-governmental organization for Sable Island.

In following this code of practice, industry made significant changes to its program design and implementation, including delaying the start of the program to avoid the peak periods for nesting birds, pupping harbour seals and foaling horses and changing the layout of seismic lines to avoid biologically rich areas.

Under the 1999 program, Mobil Oil Canada used two vibro-seismic vehicles on the island as sound sources on the north and south sides of the western third of Sable Island. They were restricted to the unvegetated outer beach areas. These were the sound sources. Sixty-two receiver lines were laid across the island for the purpose of receiving the sounds. In placing these receiver lines, no vehicle traffic was permitted on any vegetated terrain and all traffic on vegetation was on foot and restricted to the receiver lines. All the gear used during the program, including cables, geophones, batteries and so forth were carried into and out of the vegetated areas by personnel travelling only on foot.

Ms. Lucas concluded in a 2000 report that, “In general during the 1999 seismic program on Sable Island there was a very high compliance with the Code of Practice”. She also observed that “the [seismic] program had limited and short-term impact on Sable Island”. Furthermore, she concluded that compliance with the code of practice by the survey company “indicated that any group operating on the island could be expected to comply with similar guidelines”.

I would also point out that under the terms of the 2011 National Parks establishment agreement that was signed that year, Canada and Nova Scotia agreed that low impact exploratory work could continue to be authorized. When asked about the possibility of amending Bill S-15 to prohibit such activities by the Senate committee examining the bill, Mr. Leonard Preyra, minister of communities, culture and heritage with the Government of Nova Scotia, confirmed that having the potential to permit such activities, “is an important building block for the agreement itself. In a way, it's a deal breaker”.

During our debate in second reading, concern was expressed that Bill S-15 could set a precedent for other national parks with respect to continuing petroleum-related activity. This is clearly not the case with Bill S-15, as it does not amend the Canada National Parks Act to permit low impact petroleum activities in existing or future national parks. Rather we are amending the Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to restrict the board's current powers to authorize seismic activities on Sable Island to low impact activities.

For that reason, I would suggest that our government is not compromising the integrity of Canada's national park system, as has been suggested on several occasions by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

In creating new national parks, governments are often challenged to make tough decisions when it comes to allowing certain activities, be it mining roads in Nahanni, traditional land use activities, including hunting in Wapusk, or access to timber resources for local use in Gros Morne. In each case, we balance the need to maintain the integrity of the national park system, while trying to seize the opportunity to enhance the conservation of some of our special places, such as Sable Island.

The fact is that we have succeeded in negotiating a stronger conservation regime for Sable Island than currently exists and that is the goal here. It is to protect this area, it is to bring a greater degree of conservation and it is to understand that this indeed is one of the most special places we have in the country and we should be protecting it. That is the intent of the bill, full stop.

I would argue that our government is strengthening the integrity of our national park system and is working to significantly expand our national marine conservation area. It is because of this pragmatic approach in dealing with the various challenges inherent in creating new national parks that we are making tremendous progress.

For example, in 2006, our government established the 5,565 square kilometre Saoyú-?ehdacho National Historic Site in partnership with the Déline Land Corporation and the Déline Renewable Resources Council. This is the first northern cultural landscape commemorated by the Government of Canada, the first northern national historic site co-operatively managed by Parks Canada and an aboriginal group and the first protected area established under the Northwest Territories protected areas strategy.

In 2007, the Prime Minister joined with the Government of Ontario in announcing the creation of Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area. At more than 10,000 square kilometres, including the lake bed, islands and north shore lands, this is the largest freshwatrer marine protected area in the world.

In 2009, the House passed legislation resulting in the dramatic sixfold expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve. For their efforts in achieving this decades-old dream, the minister of the environment, the Grand Chief of the Dehcho First Nation and the president of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society were awarded the prestigious Gold Medal by the Royal Canadian Geographical Society.

Last August, the Prime Minister joined with the leaders of the Sahtu Dene and Metis to announce the creation of Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve of Canada for the purpose of protecting the headwaters of the South Nahanni River. This conservation action will bring to a conclusion the work of so many to protect the Greater Nahanni Ecosystem.

In the 2011 Speech from the Throne, our government pledged to the people of Canada to create significant new protected areas. For example, Parks Canada is working to conclude negotiations to create a new national park on Bathurst Island in Nunavut and a new national park reserve in the Mealy Mountains of Labrador. Each of these new parks will bring ecological, social and economic benefits to aboriginal people and northern communities. Each new park will also shed light on a new and fascinating destination for visitors, providing an opportunity to diversify the local economy and to open the door to new and fascinating stories about these places.

We will continue our work to conclude the consultations and feasibility assessments for proposed national marine conservation areas in the ecologically rich waters of the southern Strait of Georgia in British Columbia and Lancaster Sound in Nunavut, and for a new national park reserve in the Thaidene Nene area of the east arm of Great Slave Lake. In each case we are working closely with the provincial and territorial governments as well as aboriginal peoples.

I want to assure the House that while our government continues to work to protect national parks and marine conservation areas, we are also working to promote urban conservation. We also want to bring the inspirational messages of such faraway places as Sable Island to urban populations because we want people in urban communities to be inspired to take action to protect their natural areas.

As we move to bring Sable Island under the Canada National Parks Act, our government stands to make a special contribution to urban conservation in Canada in establishing the country's first urban national park in Rouge Valley in the greater Toronto area. Rouge national urban park will be a unique concept that would include the conservation of natural and cultural assets, sustainable agriculture, opportunities for learning and a wide range of recreational activities.

Canada's national parks already make an important contribution to urban conservation, through the provision of clean air and water and the economic benefits in natural areas. For example, the protective watershed of Banff National Park supplies life-giving drinking water, provides recreational opportunities and supports farmers and industries well beyond its boundaries.

Parks Canada's places also provide sustainable ecosystems that are home to our migratory areas for many species, such as warblers and monarch butterflies in Point Pelee National Park. These species are in turn a key link in the ecological chain of urban areas.

While the provision of clean air and water and the ecological benefits of natural areas are an incredible contribution, in fact, they only make up a fraction of what Parks Canada provides to Canadians in urban conservation.

Arguably, Park Canada's largest role in this matter is to provide the opportunities of experiencing nature first-hand, an increased public awareness of sustainable development and natural heritage and an inspiring sense of pride in taking conservation action. This is a cornerstone of what it means to be Canadian.

There is a large body of research that demonstrates that exposure to natural environments helps people cope with stress, illness and injury and improved concentration and productivity.

As I wrap up, I encourage my colleagues opposite to support the bill. I am very encouraged by the high level of productive dialogue that we have had. I am very much looking forward to having a good discussion at committee on the bill, to review each of the concerns my colleagues have brought forward. I have tried to provide some clarity on those tonight. The minister will be speaking later as well.

I certainly hope this is an example of where we can work together within this place, do a wonderful thing for conservation in Canada and also protect one of the most sacred and ecologically-sensitive areas in our country, not just for now but for generations to come.

I am so proud of what the Nova Scotia government has done in this matter. I am so proud of what industry has done. Together, in the House, we can take the final step and make the Sable Island national park reserve happen.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, people at home probably are not used to seeing debates in the House that are not really incredibly partisan, but we may actually have a debate tonight about issues.

I thought her speech was very good in content and so, I have a content based question.

The parliamentary secretary rightly points out that there are a lot of concerns expressed by community and community organizations about the definition of “low-impact exploration” on the surface of Sable Island. I note that low-impact is not actually defined in the Canada National Parks Act. Nor is it defined in the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act.

We have to bring this to committee. We have to hear from witnesses what “low-impact exploration” means. At that point, would the government be open to a possible amendment to the act to maybe insert a definition into the act of what we exactly mean by “low-impact exploration”?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern about ensuring that we get the terminology right within the bill so we are setting a precedent for the long-term protection of this area and we can be very clear on what these activities mean.

The example I gave tonight within my speech was, I believe, one of the only instances of this activity occurring, so it gives me cause for hope that this could potentially happen within a very defined context and also see ecological benefits.

As my colleague said, I am looking forward as well to hearing from witness groups.

On the point of amendment, we have to ensure the Nova Scotia government and other partners that have been involved in the creation of the bill are comfortable with any changes that could or could not be made, given that there is a mirror agreement in place.

However, the discussion needs to start at committee. We need to hear from witnesses. I would certainly be amenable, as a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, to personally exploring what low-impact seismic activity means, then looking at it within the context of the legislation and moving forward from there.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the details that were given. It is important that we understand the possible impacts of the seismic activity on Sable Island. Parks Canada has told me that it has only one study. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could therefore share with the House how seismic activity can affect the environment and wildlife. There is real concern that this could be a precedent.

Could the member guarantee that this new park will not set a precedent and that the integrity of Canada's national parks will not be undermined, but protected?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, those are all excellent questions. Given the constraints of time, for the latter half of my colleague's question with regard to the precedent setting nature of this, I would direct her to check Hansard on the front end of my speech because I laid out quite a bit of text around that concern.

The member asked about the seismic activities. I did a little research in this regard. I have a couple of points.

First, the resident of Sable Island who I spoke about in my speech was involved in the follow-on study to the last seismic activities that happened at the park. A study done in that regard showed this activity could be done within a very tight framework with very strict guidelines and still preserve the ecological integrity of the island, which is the key component in ensuring the creation of our national parks.

Again, given the length of time that I have this evening, I am happy to speak to my colleague at committee about some of the other concerns she has about the potential ecological impact of seismic activity. We have some examples here, but I would probably spend five minutes reading them into the record and I am sure we will have witness groups that will come and talk about this at the committee stage as well.

I am certainly looking forward to addressing these concerns. I share her concerns and I look forward to hearing witness testimony at committee.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for her excellent work. I was a member of the environment committee for a number of years. I was a former national park warden in our parks in Alberta and had a tremendous opportunity there. I worked with some fantastic people in Parks Canada. It is a great agency. I was glad to represent Rocky Mountain House National Historic Site too and the wonderful work that has been done out there to commemorate our past and the work of David Thompson.

My question is for clarification on what the difference is between a national park reserve and a national park, the levels of protection. I know there are some games being played by some of the opposition in trying to confuse Canadians about what that is.

Clearly this is not going back to the way the Liberals, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, used to do things, which was to expropriate land for the creation of Kouchibouguac National Park where some 1,200 people were uprooted and basically thrown off their land indiscriminately. That is clearly not happening in this case. We have good examples like Grasslands National Park Reserve where it is a willing seller and willing buyer. These are the kinds of things that were brought in by a previous Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney. We have Pacific Rim National Park Reserve where those protections are afforded, yet there are still outstanding land claims and so on.

What kind of assurances can the parliamentary secretary provide to those who would seek claim there? Are people going to be disrupted the way they so rudely were so many years ago in the creation of some of our national parks?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to reassert the importance of partnering with first nation communities in the creation of protected spaces in our country. Absolutely we need to have robust consultation as well as ensure that any claim rights are respected in the development of further protections for these types of areas.

To the distinction between Canada's national park and a national park reserve, as I said earlier in my speech, a reserve definition is clearly defined under the Canada National Parks Act and it used where there are outstanding claims by aboriginal peoples regarding aboriginal rights and title and these claims have been accepted by Canada for negotiation. Just to be absolutely clear, a national park reserve is protected just as much as a national park, all while respecting the assertion of aboriginal or treaty rights.

Again, while I have time here tonight, on behalf of all of my colleagues in the House, it is such a pleasure to see a positive partnership such as the one that has been established with the Mi'kmaq, with the Nova Scotia government and with industry to come up with a solution, a made-in-Nova Scotia solution, to protect such a very special piece of land. I certainly look forward to celebrating that by passing this bill through this place.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Sable Island is, of course, the graveyard of the Atlantic. One of the concerns is that it is a moving sandbar.

I have two questions for the parliamentary secretary.

First, because of the fragile nature of Sable Island, will there be a buffer around the island to protect its interests? Second, grey seals are exploding off Sable Island. Many fishermen are concerned about this explosion of grey seals and the effect they will have on Sable Island itself. Would this legislation ensure the possibility of some kind of harvest of grey seals to reduce the damage they may cause to Sable Island?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, those are two very good and important questions that have come up during the discussion of this legislation.

To the first point on the buffer, I believe that there is a one-nautical-mile buffer created by the bill that prohibits petroleum drilling activities in that area to ensure that the ecological integrity of the park is protected.

With regard to my colleague's question about the seal population, Parks Canada has a detailed policy for species management within a variety of national parks. In this context, it would be seals. In other national parks, there are other species that become overpopulated from time to time. Parks Canada has a protocol to manage such situations. I want to reassure my colleague that while the protocols exist to allow that, they have strict ecological integrity components and they are done under strict management practices. While I do not have those in front of me tonight, that is certainly an excellent question to bring up at committee, because I believe that it should be put on the record.

We on the government side, and my colleagues on the opposition side, have heard that this is a concern among fishermen in the area that has come up several times over.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be standing here tonight speaking to this bill. It has been a long time coming. It has been decades coming. This is a really important piece of legislation.

Some games have been played with regard to this legislation, and despite the assertions of the member for Wetaskiwin, the games have not been played by the opposition. The games, in fact, have been played by the Conservatives. I think this legislation is too important for games. If there is time at the end, I will address what happened. All of that aside, I want to jump in and talk about the substance of this bill, so let us take look at the legislation.

First, I want to say that I want to support this legislation, but I will not do it at any cost. This is absolutely worth supporting at second reading. We need to get this to committee. I am eager to get it to committee. I am eager to work with both the Conservative and Liberal members of the environment committee to take a good look at this legislation, hopefully resolve some of the issues we may have with it and eventually pass it.

As members know, this legislation will establish Sable Island national park reserve of Canada. That is pretty exciting. It is a huge step.

As members might know, Sable Island is a long, narrow crescent of sand in the North Atlantic. It is about 290 kilometres off the southeast shore of Nova Scotia. Believe it or not, Sable Island is actually in the riding of Halifax. I am the member of Parliament for Sable Island, for the one person, Zoe Lucas, who lives there, and all of those horses.

My provincial counterpart in the Nova Scotia legislature, Minister Leonard Preyra, represents Sable as well. The name of his constituency is actually Halifax Citadel-Sable Island. He is lucky enough to have Sable Island in the name of his riding, which is pretty fun.

Sable Island is characterized by sand dunes and grasses. It is home to over 190 plant species. It has the world's largest colony of grey seals, as we heard from my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore. There is a borderline problem with grey seals on the island because of the population explosion.

There are 350 species of birds, including roseate tern, which is protected under the Species at Risk Act.

It is a little anomaly there in the ocean, but it is a pretty special place. I have never been. I am not sure that I want to go, because I respect the idea that we should not all be heading to Sable Island. I respect that we can learn about it and appreciate it from the mainland. However, it certainly occupies a special place in the hearts of Nova Scotians.

Of course, as members know, the island's most famous inhabitants are wild horses. There are about 375 of them on the island. The Sable Island horse is Nova Scotia's official horse. Who knew that Nova Scotia had an official horse? Every single Nova Scotian knows that.

Sable is on the edge of the continental shelf, and as a result, it has some pretty wicked storms, with big surges and rough seas. As a result, it is known as the graveyard of the Atlantic. There have been about 350 recorded shipwrecks on the island.

What does this bill do? This bill is a culmination of years of work by community members, the federal government, the provincial government and Parks Canada. They have all come together to work to protect Sable Island's unique nature and ecosystems.

In 2004, the federal and Nova Scotia governments concluded that “it would be in the public interest to use a federal protected area designation to achieve conservation objectives for Sable Island”.

That was in 2004. That was really the beginning of the big thrust to turn this into a national park. Since then, Parks Canada has engaged in very real and meaningful consultation, including public sessions where they just reported back on where they were and gave us status updates. I attended a number of these in Halifax.

I need to take a moment to acknowledge the work of the people at Parks Canada who have been handling this file. They have done an incredible job. They have listened to concerns and have been very open. Huge credit goes to them. They have done an excellent job of establishing trust in our communities.

As I said, this island occupies a special place in the hearts of Nova Scotians, and as a result, everybody is afraid that something will go wrong. What would a park designation mean? Would it mean that it would turn into Disneyland or something? There was a lot of hesitation. Parks Canada worked slowly and patiently with communities, heard out their concerns, and built an incredible amount of trust in the communities.

I also want to note the work of Zoe Lucas, from the Green Horse Society, who we have already heard about tonight. She is an incredible person. There is the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Right now, Chris Miller is handling this file. There is the work of Mark Butler with the Ecology Action Centre, including many other people who have championed this work. I would also like to give a special shout out to Leonard Preyra, who has really been a champion of this bill in the legislature.

We have the bill in the House. What would it do? It is not perfect, and it is okay that it is not perfect. It is not perfect, but I think it is a step in the right direction. I have some issues with the bill that I am hopeful we can explore at committee. I understand that the minister will be speaking to this bill in the House. I am grateful that he will be part of the debate tonight and will hear my concerns, and hopefully, even speak to them.

There will be a proposed section 140.1 of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum and Resources Accord Implementation Act. I will call it the offshore act. The change states:

140.1 No person shall carry on any work or activity related to the drilling for petroleum, including exploratory drilling for petroleum, in Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada or within one nautical mile seaward of its low-water mark.

That means that there will be no drilling. That is a complete ban on drilling. That is my interpretation of this section. That is very important. There will be no surface drilling within one nautical mile. That is my understanding or interpretation of that section. Keep that in mind while I move on to the next section, because I want to apply that no-drilling part to another section.

Section 142.1 of the act will be amended to say in proposed subsection 142.1(3):

142.1(3) With respect to Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada, the surface access rights provided for under this section are limited to the following:

(a) access to existing wellheads for the purposes of safety and environmental protection;

I will skip to proposed paragraphs 142.1(3)(c) and 142.1(3)(d) which state:

(c) emergency evacuation capacity for offshore workers; and

(d) the operation, maintenance and inspection of emergency facilities, including helicopter landing and fuel storage facilities.

I skipped proposed paragraph 142.1(3)(b), but I have no problem with what I read. Of course, there are already existing wellheads. I understand that the wind blows the sand off the wellheads, and people need to be able to deal with them. Having emergency facilities like a helicopter landing in case there is an emergency offshore makes good sense. I do not have any problems with those parts of the bill.

However, proposed paragraph 142.1(3)(b) is the exploration we are talking about. It states:

(b) petroleum exploration activities with a low impact on the environment, including seismic, geological or geophysical programs;

If we go back to the surface drilling piece, my interpretation of the legislation says that exploratory activities would mean no drilling also. I would interpret this to mean that even seismic is no drilling. I would interpret this to say that one could take soil samples. It is not drilling to take a spade and dig a little bit, but I interpret this to mean no drilling, and I want to explore that at committee to make sure that this is a correct interpretation.

Going further with this idea of the exploration activities, there is a huge problem with the issue of seismic. I have already started getting emails and being contacted by people in the community saying that they do not understand what this means, that this is really worrying for them, and I share that concern. What does seismic look like? I heard the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, who talked about how seismic has changed and that it is much more low impact here.

My understanding of seismic is that it is a not very big kind of box, probably the size of this podium, that sends out sound waves, and they can take a picture that way. It does not involve dragging giant cables or drilling. However, I want to find out from the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, CNSOPB, if this is what it is talking about, because there is no definition here of what “low impact” is. It is not in the National Parks Act and it is not in the offshore accord act, so what is this seismic?

I am also looking forward to testimony from the CNSOPB about this idea of low-impact exploration. Does that have to be approved by the CNSOPB as well, or is it something that companies can do just by virtue of being in this section of the bill?

I talked about companies. ExxonMobil actually has the rights for drilling on the island. They do not drill on the island right now, and they do observe a one nautical mile limit, but it is voluntary, so it is very positive that the bill would put into legislation something that is happening voluntarily.

However, the leases will still exist. I am having trouble wrapping my head around the fact that if the leases still exist but they are not allowed to drill, do they need permission from the CNSOPB to do this exploration? What does it look like? What kinds of impacts will it have on the environment?

The parliamentary secretary talked about how Zoe Lucas was able to work with industry to come up with best practices when it comes to this kind of exploration. I would love to hear more about that and maybe have Zoe Lucas come to committee and testify as a witness. I understand that she has worked closely with industry to avoid things like dragging equipment through the dunes, making sure there is a moratorium on this work during certain mating seasons and those kinds of assurances.

Zoe Lucas spends most of her time on the island. She is an extraordinary scientist, and I trust her. Therefore, if this is something that she has worked on, my inclination is to say that it is probably to a pretty high standard, but that is something I think we need to explore at committee.

We have banned surface drilling. We have banned drilling within one nautical mile. However, to me this means that at 1.1 nautical miles, we could have platforms. What does that mean for noise pollution and light pollution? We are dealing with species at risk on the island, and I want to know if there are those kinds of environmental concerns.

Let us imagine this platform at 1.1 nautical miles, just outside the range. There is still drilling under the island. I have had a number of contacts from people in communities saying that it is outrageous. My instinct is to say that is outrageous, but I am trying to understand what it means, and I am also trying to understand if it is technically possible to be 1.1 nautical miles out, drill down below bedrock and then do horizontal drilling.

We all know that horizontal drilling is real and that we have the technology to do it, for example, in hydraulic fracturing, but is it technically possible right now to do that kind of drilling? If it is below the bedrock, what are the potential environmental implications?

Sable Island, as members know, is in a gas field, so I am not as concerned about things like oil spills. However, I would like to flesh out this idea of drilling under the island, because it is pretty concerning. I would also like to hear from the CNSOPB and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society about their perception of the environmental impacts of this drilling.

My colleague from Etobicoke North and the parliamentary secretary for the environment raised the precedent-setting issue. This is a funny beast, because Sable Island falls under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard and under this offshore petroleum accord. However, the offshore petroleum accord is being amended here, not the parks act, when it comes to drilling. I do not see how it would be a precedent for other parks, because it is such an unusual situation: there are no other parks under the jurisdiction of the offshore accord act.

I suppose this question would be best put to the department to flesh out what the potential precedents are. I do not think there are any. That is my interpretation when I read the legislation, but I would like to flesh out that concept a little bit more.

Regarding the consultation with the Mi'kmaq, I did hear the explanation from the parliamentary secretary about the issue of park reserve versus park. She explained that while this Made-in-Nova Scotia Process is happening, we actually should not be designating things as parks but rather park reserves, which offers the same protections and obligations.

I understand that argument. That is also my interpretation of the legislation, but again I would like to flesh that out at committee with the department. I know as well that some people from the Confederacy of Mainland Mi'kmaq testified at the Senate, and I would like to hear from them too.

My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore raised the issue of the seal population on the island. I think we need some answers from Parks Canada about the seal hunt. To the best of my understanding, hunting is allowed in some national parks.

There is a big difference between a seal hunt and a seal cull. The NDP has been supportive of a hunt, but not necessarily of a cull, so it would be important to know if hunting would still be allowed on the island. This is not a make-or-break issue, but it is an important piece in understanding this legislation.

Those are my major concerns with the actual legislation. I am looking forward to working with my Conservative and Liberal colleagues on the environment committee to try to figure out what we do with this legislation and whether we can and should amend it. As I have said, I will be supporting it at second reading to get it to committee.

I want to come back to something that happened this afternoon, because it really does trouble me. It is the fact that we are sitting until midnight. We have been sitting here until midnight for a while now. That is okay. I am pretty tired, but it is okay, because every moment in the House, even if it is a tired moment, is a real privilege. It is a very special thing to be here. Even though it is until midnight, I am still honoured.

I am pretty tired and my skin is pretty thin, quite frankly, because that is what happens when we are tired. I still had quite a bit of spirit, but today in the House, my spirit was broken a little bit.

I do not understand why we are sitting until midnight. I do not understand what the urgency is and why we cannot work co-operatively to get some of these things through the House. I do not understand why we are debating bills that we could have debated when the Conservatives prorogued the House and we were not sitting. Perhaps we could have debated these laws then, because most of them are repeats, but they needed to shut debate down at that time.

Regardless of all of this, being tired and having thin skin, I have kept my spirits up. I have done my best to do my job. I have tried my best to do my job. However, today, as you saw earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives moved time allocation. They moved to limit the debate on this bill.

That in itself is not special. In itself it is nothing new, because today's time allocation was the 42nd time that they have moved time allocation. The upsetting thing is the fact that the NDP was trying to work with the government to move this bill forward. This is what I spoke to during the questions and answers around time allocation. We were trying to negotiate. We opened a door to say, "Let us try to pass this and do something together", but they took that door and slammed it in our face.

Usually our adversaries are the critic and the parliamentary secretary, but this is not about the parliamentary secretary. We have a very good working relationship. This is about the leadership of the Conservatives. It is about the House leader's leadership. It is about the fact that all they know is to pick up a hammer, and when one has a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

It is very hard for me to think that we are going to be able to do this at committee, have that kind of negotiation and work together. I have lost a tremendous amount of trust, and I think it is worth saying it again on the record that this is the reality.

I need to get this to committee. I am open to working with my colleagues, but it is going to be pretty hard.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Halifax for her very thoughtful questions. I am looking forward to exploring many of those issues at committee and I am hoping that we can come up with a witness list that is collaborative and will answer these questions. If she could give me some of that ahead of time, we will make sure that we work to schedule it.

I have two questions for her.

One is with regard to the bill. She mentioned raising the possibility of amendments in committee. I wonder if she already has specific ideas for the definition of low impact or if she has heard anything from her contacts in the ENGO community that we could begin to do some research on.

The second question is a more esoteric one. She spoke about colleagues working well together in this place and she talked about leadership. She talked about how negotiations go down in this place. I would like her thoughts, because it takes two to tango, on how perhaps her party, as well as ours, could raise the level of debate in the House, because it is about negotiation. If she has some positive feedback or suggestions that my colleagues here could take back to our caucus, I would be willing to listen to those as well.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question about the amendments. The Parliamentary Secretary and I have spoken outside of the House about what those possible amendments are. I did commit to trying to get some to her before we went to committee. I am actually finding that a really difficult task because I feel as though I do not have quite enough information at my fingertips yet to be able to do that.

I do not know if it would mean an actual definition of low impact or if we need to maybe alter proposed paragraph 142.1(3)(b) to say no to some specific things. I am open to either one, but to clarify would be a great idea.

On her point about raising the level of debate, I do think that there is a failure to collaborate in the House. Everything is about getting it in, getting the time allocation and pushing everything to the limit. Maybe the government gets the right to do that when it is a majority. I do not know; I cut my procedural teeth in a minority government, so there was a lot more negotiation. There was give and take.

I would hope that our House officers would take a more collegial approach when it comes to figuring out how we get legislation through the House and actually make it better. I do think it is a leadership issue. Those of us who are not House officers, who are not in those leadership roles, would follow suit very gladly.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I am very concerned about the lack of definition of low impact. At a departmental briefing, officials explained to me, and I quote, that there are no exact details and no discussion of when low impact becomes high impact. Low-impact activities must be defined for parliamentarians when they are reviewed at committee.

My other major concern is regarding precedent.

The officials have said that future parks are legislatively protected from exploration. Regardless, I would like the government's word that the integrity of Canada's national parks will not be undermined but instead protected, that creating a national park among oil and gas exploration is not a foot in the door, an opening or a setting of precedent to allow development in our treasured national parks.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, can I ask a point of clarification before I answer? I was unclear about the first part of the question that my colleague asked. I was unclear if it was a quote.

Would she mind repeating where the quote came from?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a quote from an official: “There are no exact details, no discussion of when low impact becomes high impact”.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, thank you. Now I understand.

Absolutely, she is right. As I noted, there is no definition in the parks act, nor is there in the accord act.

I do not quite yet know where to go with this. I do not know if it means a definition. I do not know if it means looking at proposed paragraph 142.1(3)(b) and actually listing what is not acceptable. That might be a way through. We need to talk to Parks Canada and the CNSOPB to figure out the best way to do this, of course with consultation from environment groups.

I do not have an answer for her, but I agree with her 100% that it is a matter of concern, and we need to figure it out.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague from Halifax but directed to the parliamentary secretary as well.

Environmental groups in Halifax and across the country have a lot of distrust. I was there in 1995 as a private citizen when Sable Gas was starting up its lease explorations and explaining to the people of Nova Scotia about the lease process, about drilling for gas and everything offshore. The company had big maps in the Waverley fire hall. A map showed a blacked out Sable Island with a circle around it. Officials of Sable Gas said that under no circumstances would it touch this very precious piece of Canadian heritage. It was going to leave it alone. I thought that sounded great. But the problem was that five years later the company did seismic testing on the island. It completely broke its word.

My personal view is low impact, high impact. My advice is no impact, no seismic testing under any circumstances on that island. The island should be left alone.

I was really impressed by my colleague from Halifax who represents Sable Island. As I said, I have had the opportunity to go to Sable Island and it truly is one of the most beautiful areas on the planet. She herself says that she may not want to go there because of the effect that oil and gas exploration may have on the island.

I have two questions for my colleague. First, does my colleague believe in no impact in terms of oil and gas exploration on the island? Second, by turning Sable Island into a national park, one of our concerns is that many people may want to visit it, and human activity could have a serious effect on that island. I would like to have her comments on that please.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has been a wonderful mentor to me back home. He has really shown me around the community.

Visitors on the island are a huge concern. That is one of the reasons why there is talk of having an interpretive centre not on Sable. We can learn about Sable. We can enjoy Sable Island without actually going there. There could be pretty serious impact if the island turns into a big visitors' centre and people are out there on their Sea-Doos in their wetsuits.

I believe in no impact absolutely. No impact sounds great and would absolutely be my preference.

I am admittedly trying to be a bit of a pragmatist here because I did read the testimony at Senate committee. The Nova Scotia government did say ExxonMobil is giving up its rights to drill on this island. Everybody is saying a one nautical mile limit for drilling. There is give and take there. I am putting a lot of faith in the fact that there was a true and honest negotiation, but my preference would be no impact.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the concept of visits to the island came up. While ecological integrity is one of the key tenets of the Canada Parks Act, we want to see that maintained in this legislation. We discussed visitor access; obviously the ecological needs of Sable Island are quite different than, say, those of Banff National Park.

My colleague brought up a potential visitors' centre. Obviously Parks Canada would engage in consultation on this. Given that she is the local representative, I am wondering if she could provide some thoughts on how that could be accomplished, assuming that this legislation passes through the House of Commons. What would be an ideal visitors' centre? Could she tell us what she is hearing from the local community with regard to some of the best elements that should be incorporated in that?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this has captured the imagination of people at home not just in Halifax, but all around the province. Some people have come up with ideas that are crazy and some ideas that are really inspiring. I cannot recall them right now because I was not thinking about preparing them for my speech, but there are great ideas on the ground. People are talking about them. People are excited. Their imaginations are running wild.

Parks Canada needs to consult with folks on the ground, and I know it will do that. Parks Canada is going to be absolutely awed by what it hears from people.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate. I understand we have a request for unanimous consent from the Minister of the Environment. Does the minister have unanimous consent to speak at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. Minister of the Environment.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada's national parks act.

This bill would bring legal protection to Nova Scotia's Sable Island as Canada's 43rd national park. It is a key action toward the Government of Canada's commitment in its 2011 Speech from the Throne to create significant new protected areas. The passing of this bill would mark the end of the steps to which the Government of Canada agreed, with the Province of Nova Scotia, to designate Sable Island as a national park reserve, and the start of a new iconic national park reserve for all Canadians.

In fact, in October 2011, the hon. member for Central Nova and I were honoured to join with the Premier of Nova Scotia, Darrell Dexter, in Halifax to sign the memorandum of agreement for a national park at Sable Island. I know that each of us shared, that day, a strong sense that not only were we concluding almost 50 years of work to conserve Sable Island, but that we were taking the necessary action to protect this iconic landscape for the benefit of future generations. The dream of protecting Sable Island is a long-standing one that we hope to realize very shortly with the passage of Bill S-15.

As the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's noted earlier in this debate, it was the call of schoolchildren from across Canada to stop the proposed removal of the famous Sable Island horses that resulted in the first federal conservation action in 1961. And, as the Sable Island region became the focus for petroleum development in the late 1960s and early 1970s, organizations stepped forward to draw national attention to the future of the island. During this time, the level of development and human use of the island declined, allowing nature to once again reassert itself.

As someone who has had the honour and the distinct pleasure of visiting Sable Island, I can attest to this House what a special place we are bringing under the protection of our world-class national parks system. In size, Sable Island is tiny in comparison to the 30,000 square kilometres now protected in Nahanni National Park Reserve in the Northwest Territories, thanks to the actions of Parliament in 2009 when it significantly expanded Nahanni. However, from my first-hand experience, I can tell members that it is no less important. Nature indeed has reasserted itself, reclaiming Sable Island as a sanctuary for life on the edge.

As we fly into Sable Island, we cannot help but be impressed by the fact that this isolated sandbar island, located, as my colleagues have said, just under 300 kilometres from Halifax, has survived. It is amazing that it has survived, let alone sustained life. The island is a remarkable formation, not only for its geography as the only remaining exposed portion of the outer continental shelf in the northwest Atlantic, but for its wildlife. Some 190 plant species live there, including 20 that have restricted distribution elsewhere. It is a sanctuary for some 350 species of migratory birds, including the roseate tern that is listed as endangered under the Species at Risk Act. In fact, Sable Island is the breeding ground for virtually the entire world population of the Ipswich sparrow.

Perhaps most famously, Sable Island is home to a band of feral horses. The numbers vary, from year to year and from decade to decade, from 300 to 500 animals. It is one of the few bands in the world that remains entirely unmanaged. These horses were introduced, it is believed, in the 1730s, and were declared protected by the Diefenbaker government in 1961. As a Canadian, as a member of this House and as a visitor to Sable Island, I am proud to stand in this chamber to help conclude the work started back in 1961. What a legacy for this Parliament to leave to future generations.

And, what a legacy passed on from previous generations. As we have heard, Sable Island has a very long human history, some of it tragic. About 350 shipwrecks are recorded there, earning the island the title often referred to of “graveyard of the Atlantic”.

Life-saving stations were established there over 200 years ago and in subsequent years lighthouses and shelters for shipwrecked sailors were built, much attributed to the resourcefulness and determination of Canadians. Thanks to the professional expertise of Parks Canada, we will continue to tell these stories and will continue to share them with Canadians and people around the world.

The bill before us amends schedule 2 of the Canada National Parks Act to add the legal boundary description of Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada. Using the national park reserve designation respects the ongoing discussions that the federal government is having with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia under the Made-in-Nova Scotia Process. The Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia support the national park reserve designation for Sable Island. The Government of Canada is committed to negotiating an agreement with the Mi'kmaq once the Made-in-Nova Scotia Process is completed in order to transition Sable Island to final full national park status.

Until that agreement is finalized, Sable Island would remain a national park reserve. I wish to stress that a national park reserve enjoys all the same protections that a national park does while respecting assertions of aboriginal or treaty rights. It is not a lesser category of national park. Some of our iconic parks, such as the Nahanni, in the Northwest Territories, and Gwaii Haanas and Pacific Rim on the west coast, are also still national park reserves. Nor is this time limited. We will not effect the transition to a full-fledged national park until we have concluded our work with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia.

As we heard, Sable Island is located in one of the largest offshore hydrocarbon basins in North America. I know that during this debate I heard again this evening concern expressed about the future of Sable Island and the petroleum activities that may be permitted within this region. However, at the end of the day, given that Sable Island National Park Reserve is being created in a region that is the subject of active petroleum exploration and development, I believe that our government and the Government of Nova Scotia have negotiated an approach to Sable Island that balances conservation and development in creating Canada's 43rd national park.

Members should consider what we would be accomplishing with this bill as it pertains to Sable Island. We would be creating a new and exciting park reserve on Sable Island that would conserve one of the largest dune systems in eastern Canada, habitat for endangered species and of course for the wild horses of Sable.

We would be protecting the asserted aboriginal rights and title of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia while launching a new collaboration between Parks Canada and the Mi'kmaq. For the first time we would be putting in place a legislative ban on exploratory and extractive drilling for petroleum resources from the surface of Sable Island. We would be creating a legislated buffer zone around the national park reserve that prohibits drilling from the park boundary, which would be considered the shoreline at low tide, out one nautical mile.

We would be legally limiting the number of current petroleum-related activities that can be undertaken from Sable Island while directing those activities, if authorized, have low impact. I would be glad to speak to that in questions after these remarks. We would be putting in place a legislative requirement for the Offshore Petroleum Board to consult Parks Canada before consideration of any permits for this low-impact activity on Sable Island.

Finally, we would be providing opportunities for Canadians to experience and learn about Sable Island, whether by visiting the island itself or learning through various media.

At this time, I would like to echo the remarks of previous speakers in thanking the holders of petroleum discovery licences on or near Sable Island who voluntarily agreed to amendments that now fully and in perpetuity prevent them from drilling on the island and within the buffer zone of one nautical mile.

I too want to express my sincere appreciation to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for their work in helping to create a national park reserve on Sable Island.

I want to again express my sincere appreciation to the Province of Nova Scotia for working with us from day one to realize this new national park reserve.

I would like to assure this House that for Parks Canada, Bill S-15 would be but a first step as it takes on administration of the island and begins to deepen the connection Canadians make with this remote place in the northwest Atlantic Ocean.

In the coming years, the agency would work with partners and shareholders to protect this land of wild horses and windswept dunes, of shipwrecks and sea birds. The wild character of this island would continue to be a defining feature for those who make the once-in-a-lifetime journey there.

I have heard questions of mild concern to this effect, but Parks Canada would carefully facilitate experience opportunities while protecting the special place in perpetuity for the benefit of present and future generations.

At the same time that Parks Canada maintained Sable Island's ecological integrity, it would consult with the public and it would work with partners and stakeholders to prepare a management plan to guide all aspects of the future management of this wonderful national park reserve.

Now I wish to briefly describe the other proposed amendments to the Canada National Parks Act made in the second part of the bill.

First, with regard to the other proposed amendments in the second part of this bill, the bill before us would address issues raised by the standing joint committee for the scrutiny of regulations, in particular to correct the discrepancies between the English and the French versions of subsection 4(1). These changes are minor in nature. They would not alter the meaning of the clause.

The bill would also add a new subsection 4(1.1), which clarifies the authority of the Minister of the Environment to use section 23 or section 24 of the Parks Canada Agency Act to set fees in national parks.

In fact, an amendment to this bill in the Senate brought greater clarity to these changes. The bill would make changes affecting two national parks in western Canada. It would make minor changes to commercial zoning in the community of Field, British Columbia, in Yoho National Park, to reflect the current reality in Field while at the same time respecting the commercial limits established for that community and the community plan.

Finally, the last set of amendments is that Bill S-15 would change the leasehold boundaries of the Marmot Basin ski area that is within Jasper National Park of Canada by removing an area that is an important wildlife habitat for woodland caribou, for mountain goat, for grizzly bear and for wolverine in exchange for a smaller area of less ecologically sensitive land. This would result in a significant gain for the ecological integrity of Jasper National Park.

The Government of Canada is proud to table this bill to formally establish a Sable Island national park reserve of Canada, and to give this national treasure the highest level of environmental protection in the country. Sable Island would join with other places that have become Canada's premier natural and cultural icons in a national parks system that covers more than 326,000 square kilometres, an area that is 4 times the size of Lake Superior and that celebrates the infinite beauty and the variety of our land.

Bill S-15 marks the third time our government has brought before Parliament a legislative proposal to increase the size of Canada's internationally acclaimed network of national parks and national marine conservation areas.

In fact, in May 2011, Parks Canada was awarded the prestigious Gift to the Earth award by World Wildlife Fund, its highest accolade to applaud conservation work of outstanding merit. In recognizing a conservation action as a gift to the earth, WWF highlights both environmental leadership and inspiring conservation achievement, which contribute to the protection of our shared living world.

The Gift to the Earth award recognizes Parks Canada's conservation leadership and its globally outstanding track record in creating new protected areas and in embracing precedent-setting aboriginal participation in the establishment and the management of our protected areas.

I would like to briefly speak to some of these new protected areas, which would soon see Sable Island among them.

In 2009, Parliament unanimously passed legislation resulting in a sixfold expansion of Nahanni National Park Reserve, bringing the park to 30,000 square kilometres in size.

It was remarked in the House that this was the conservation achievement of a generation, one that was accomplished with the close collaboration of the Dehcho First Nations. Designated one of the planet's first world heritage sites, this expanded park now protects in perpetuity significant habitat for grizzly bear, caribou and Dall sheep, as well as the famed South Nahanni River.

A year later, after a parliamentary review, the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve and Haida Heritage Site became the first marine protected area to be scheduled under the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act. In a global first, this new marine protected area, along with the existing Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site, protects a contiguous area that extends from alpine mountaintops right down to the bottom of the ocean floor—a rich temperate rainforest and its adjoining marine ecosystem now protected for the benefit of future generations. All of this was accomplished as we worked hand in hand with the people of the Haida Nation.

It is important to note that our government has not only worked to protect large or remote natural areas such as Nahanni, Gwaii Haanas and Sable Island, but we are also working to protect endangered habitat and species and to conserve some of the last large remaining natural areas in more developed settings.

In 2011, the government announced the purchase of the historic Dixon family ranch lands of the Frenchman River Valley, in southwest Saskatchewan, in order to protect it for future generations as part of Grasslands National Park of Canada.

This land acquisition of approximately 111 square kilometres within the west block of Grasslands National Park's existing boundary is significant for its spectacular scenery and its native grasslands, which includes critical habitat for species at risk.

Allow me to quote the hon. member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove, when she observed:

This vast, windswept prairie was home to millions of free-roaming bison prior to European settlement. With the re-introduction of bison—an icon of the prairie—the park will restore grazing to this mixed-grass prairie ecosystem, enhance the long-term integrity of the park and once again give Canadians the opportunity to view these symbols of the prairie after over a century's absence in this area.

It is these kinds of actions that speak to the power of our national parks. Not only do they protect the natural areas that have been handed down from generations before us, but they also provide us with the opportunity to restore what might have been lost.

Again to Grasslands National Park, in 2009, Parks Canada reintroduced the black-footed ferret, a species that had disappeared from this region more than 70 years ago.

Finally, I am particularly proud of our government's initiative to bring the message of protected areas and conservation to the Rouge Valley of Toronto.

In the 2011 Speech from the Throne, our government announced that it would work to create a national urban park, the first national urban park in Canada, in the Rouge Valley. This is an important initiative that would help increase the profile and public investment in urban conservation. I am also proud of the fact that our government will invest over $143 million, over 10 years, for park development and interim operations, with an annual budget of $7.6 million to continue operations.

The overall size of a Sable Island national park reserve and Rouge Urban National Park are not as large as our great northern and Rocky Mountain national parks, but they are no less important. They complement the mandate of large protected areas by focusing on some of our most endangered ecosystems, and they provide yet another opportunity to inspire people to take action to conserve their local natural areas.

Passage of Bill S-15 would ensure that the natural and cultural features of a Sable Island national park reserve of Canada would be protected forever, for the enjoyment, the appreciation and the benefit of current and future generations of Canadians.

I hope that hon. members across both sides of this House will join me in supporting Bill S-15.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to pose a question to the minister. My question is about a very specific piece of the legislation. I am going to read from the bill as follows:

Existing leases, easements and licences of occupation in or on Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada are continued under this Act....

I am not quite sure I understand why existing leases are continuing. In the minister's speech he talked about the protection of Sable Island. He also talked about development, as my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore pointed out to me. That sends a red flag to me when he is talking about development in his speech about creating a national park. It brings me to this piece about the existing leases and easements being held. I do not have a problem with easements, but not so leases being held. I wonder if he can explain that section and what exactly it means for us.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to have concerns when one is uncertain of the implication of the language, either in the bill or in the offshore boards agreement. However I can assure my colleague that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board can occasionally call an issue for bids a time to consider subsurface. The surface rights have been completely given up by those lease holders, but as you know, as has been remarked in debate, this is one of the largest offshore basins in North America. There are, at different levels, reserves under the island and near the island.

The last time a company undertook a seismic program on the island, as I said earlier today, it was observed by Zoe Lucas who is probably the foremost authority on the natural environment on the island and what is necessary to protect the habitat and the species there. A company undertook what is called a 3-D seismic program, where it temporarily installed listening devices and mild vibrating devices to provide a sound source. No explosives were used, no air guns were used, no drilling was permitted, nor will any drilling be permitted in the future. However this low impact activity provides for examination of the subsurface and, as you know, we have been discussing the rights of the oil companies.

When you stand on Sable Island today and look in two different directions, you can see the large, modern offshore rigs, which are operating outside this buffer zone, and their horizontal drilling is capable of accessing any new pools they may find under the island. They will not be allowed and have given up all rights to do any drilling on the island.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for coming and speaking tonight. One of our concerns is regarding the extent and oversight of natural resource development that Bill S-15 would authorize. These include petroleum exploration activities, which might include seismic, geologic or geophysical programs on Sable Island.

I am wondering if the minister could describe what is meant by seismic. People are concerned that only one study has been done to explore the impacts of seismic testing. Could he describe what seismic impacts are possible on the ocean and wildlife?

Second, I am going to ask very directly that this park created among oil and gas exploration will not be used as a foot in the door, an opening or a setting of precedent to allow development in our treasured national parks. Minister, do I have your word?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Before the hon. Minister of the Environment answers, this is the third time that comments have been directed to a member. The minister has done it. The member for Etobicoke North has now done it. All direct comments should come through the Chair.

The Minister of the Environment.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a thoughtful question. Just to follow on from my earlier answer, the seismic technology which may be contemplated today, and there is no certainty of when or at what time this might take place, is very different from the seismic technology of years past.

I look forward to watching and listening with the member when Ms. Lucas testifies at committee, I hope next week. She observed and, I suggest, may have guided those technicians who worked on the island in the past. She made very clear notes in a report, which stated in part, “in general, the seismic program had limited and short-term impact on Sable Island”. She said that the code of practice with the survey company indicated that any group operating on this island would be expected to comply with similar guidelines.

With regard to the reality of the continuing exploration and development, as I have said, there are big offshore rigs around the waters of Sable Island. Again, they are under the oversight of the National Energy Board and the offshore board. Their practices are very closely monitored and, in fact, from time to time, when weather presents a risk to those platforms, the workers on the platforms are allowed to take shelter on Sable Island temporarily.

The creation of this park, and the government of Nova Scotia recognizes this and the Mi'kmaq have expressed the same satisfaction, will protect now and forever the onshore development of unacceptable industrial or human presence. Any visits to the island will be very controlled by Parks Canada as they are in other sensitive areas.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, this is very important legislation, watershed legislation, that I think all Canadians will celebrate. One of the things we love about our national parks is they give us places to go, where we can sort of transcend our daily lives and really enjoy nature and expand our own horizons.

I would like the minister to address this issue and give Canadians a sense of what they are getting. This government, I understand, has protected more natural parkland than any government in Canadian history. We should be celebrating that and I would like to hear about that from the minister.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my previous assignment with Foreign Affairs, travelling the world and visiting a number of very exotic places, it was remarkable how often those entrusted with the protection and conservation of special places in those countries remarked that many of their practices had been modelled on the work of Parks Canada over the past century and a quarter. Banff National Park was created just over a century and a quarter ago. The National Parks Act dates back just over a century.

I thank my colleague for the opportunity to remark on the accomplishments of the past seven years. Nahanni, which I spoke to in my remarks, and Nááts'ihch'oh on the northern boundary of Nahanni have been created. However, more important, I am encouraged and delighted by the ambition of some of our environmental non-governmental organizations that want us to press on, perhaps faster than we have the capacity to achieve.

With regard to our national marine-protected areas, the major areas already protected by Parks Canada are the Haida reserve, Gwaii Haanas, Lake Superior, the largest freshwater protected space in the world, Saguenay-St. Lawrence in the St. Lawrence River and Tobermory's famous Fathom Five. We are working on three new marine-protected areas at the moment in the south Georgia Strait, the Îles de la Madeleine and Lancaster Sound in the High Arctic.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with my very esteemed colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

How could I not begin by speaking out against the 42nd time allocation motion imposed by the Conservative government? It is truly shameful because we agree with the overall intention of this bill.

I will focus mainly on the case of Sable Island and on giving it national park status. That is basically a very good idea, but since the devil is in the details, with all due respect to our Conservative colleagues, we would like to work with them as equals to examine these details and find common ground.

Unfortunately, our time will be limited, which is truly a shame. Clearly, we will not use our parliamentary privilege to talk our colleagues' ears off. All we are asking is that the Conservatives listen to our legitimate concerns, our proposals and any other reasonable issue that deserves to be debated in the House. Unfortunately, we will have to make do with what we have.

The Conservatives have a majority in the House. Good for them. Although they may abuse their power, we will continue to work and, more importantly, we will get behind a bill that has a number of positive aspects.

As a proud Canadian who was born in Quebec and still lives there today, I will talk about Sable Island, which is a rather mythical place in the minds of all Canadians. Who has not heard of Sable Island, this thin and fragile strip of sand off the coast of Nova Scotia? The island is home to many animals, including the mythical herd of wild horses. It is an idyllic place. It is also a national treasure whose reputation extends far beyond our borders.

I repeat: it is a wonderful idea to make Sable Island a national park and to provide it with the protection that comes with that status.

However, the hon. member for Halifax, a strong advocate for this issue, has pointed out a serious problem. Unfortunately, major environmental protections at the federal level have been weakened and even gutted, which is a great cause for concern and which undermines national park status.

I will not talk about that because it has been debated. I am certain that some of my colleagues will want to expand on that.

I will talk instead about the national park status. With that status, Sable Island will become the responsibility of Parks Canada, which will supervise and operate it. I will also talk about the lack of funding. No matter the value that we place on this bill, the lack of funding ultimately makes it a hollow bill, unless we at least restore some means to ensure that the island is protected and studied in order to acquire the knowledge we need about this magnificent natural place.

To illustrate this point, I will talk about my riding, Beauport—Limoilou. It is home to an important element of our history that is the responsibility of Parks Canada. I am referring to Cartier-Brébeuf Park, which history and archeology have identified as the first spot where Jacques Cartier wintered back in the 16th century.

Cartier-Brébeuf Park, which is now located in downtown Quebec City, on the shore of the St. Charles River, is a place that I remember well. When I was in high school, I went there on a school trip. I also visited it with my son after settling in Limoilou. In the winter, I think we enjoyed drinking a cedar bark brew. I do not remember it well because it was about 20 years ago. My son was a young boy at the time. It was an aboriginal recipe that helped Jacques Cartier and his crew survive the terrible Canadian winters and the ravages of scurvy, among other things.

It is very important that we preserve such an asset because it is a source of pride, not to mention knowledge. When we know where we come from, we have a greater understanding of ourselves and we have certain basic tools to guide us. The historical perspective is key. It is very easy to lose track of the past, of artifacts and material aspects of our history, which are fragile and few. These objects are part of our heritage.

This year, there will be no more interpretive guides at Cartier-Brébeuf park. Everything will be done with interpretive signs or audio-guides. People will go around with their earphones. It is an appealing method, from a technical standpoint. It is a very interesting innovation, but ultimately, nothing can replace a human being or the interaction that can mean so much to both the visitors and the interpretive guides. I can say that based on my experience at a heritage site in Lotbinière.

Nothing can replace that interaction between the visitors and the interpretive guides, who can offer so much more to the visitors. They can answer questions, or if they are asked a question that they cannot answer, they can expand their knowledge and come back with even more information to share with visitors. It is really dismaying to see this place—one of the spots where the French presence was first felt in Canada—being abandoned like this.

At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I have often asked what the point is of passing a bill if we do not have the means to put it into effect and ensure that it will be fairly and thoroughly implemented.

It is true that Bill S-15 could be very promising. However, biodiversity in Canada is on the decline, particularly marine biodiversity, and in the case of Sable Island specifically, if we do not have the means to fulfill this bill's ambitions, it will all be for naught. It will be a disgrace for us because we are passing this legacy on to future generations, and it is a rich, fragile legacy.

I also wanted to talk about the drop in visitors to our national parks. I used to be the proud critic for small business and tourism, a position that is now held by my nearby colleague. We have both noticed a dramatic drop in the number of foreign tourists. We can draw the same conclusion, be it regarding Parks Canada or foreign tourists: unfortunately, we are not doing what it takes to spark people's interest, draw them in, welcome them and help them enjoy a one-of-a-kind experience.

At the same time, we agree with the purpose of Bill S-15 and we agree to support it at second reading, but will the means follow? Can the government reassure us that they will? I have serious doubts.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for his speech. I hope he took some comfort from the parliamentary secretary's very detailed speech. We all agree that the heritage value of Sable Island is absolutely unique, especially for the French fact in North America and in Canada.

I would like to ask my colleague a simple question. How can he claim that the government is neglecting Sable Island when the government is giving it its full attention? This evening the minister also focused on it at length, through the bill. Moreover, his colleague from Halifax also appreciates what we are undertaking here. Perhaps we should set aside our partisan agendas in this case.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I must admit to a personal interest in the subject. Parks Canada represents not just our national parks, but also our archaeological and historical heritage. I trained as an archivist, and I worked as one for about two years in the 1990s, when the situation was quite terrible. I can see the devastation caused by the closure of centres and the job cuts to archaeologists, archivists and all kinds of specialists at Parks Canada in Quebec.

I am sorry to say I have no confidence in the government, especially after seeing the results of the indirect damage these measures have wreaked in Quebec. In Quebec City, where I live, the archives and private historical societies that benefited so much from the expertise of Parks Canada have all been affected. I do not feel confident. In addition, approximately 600 biologist and tour guide positions were eliminated nationwide at Parks Canada. I stand by what I said. Obviously, the money is not coming.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. My question is about Bill S-15. I am very worried about the fact that the bill, which would create a new national park on Nova Scotia's Sable Island, is a real threat.

The more I think about it, I think the perfect analogy is that this is a Trojan Horse. It is as though we are getting a new gift, a new national park, and we should all be very happy to see it. While I am happy to see a large wooden horse coming into the courtyard, I suspect that the regulatory authorities that will remain with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board will amount to a surging army that undoes the protection of other national parks across Canada.

I would like my hon. colleague's comments.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question and comments. We have to wonder whether this is a rearguard fight. Are we taking a step backwards by making some seemingly limited concessions in the hopes of making progress in certain areas?

I will focus only on the issue of the low-impact development that would be authorized. One of the problems with the bill is that this expression has not been defined. What does “low impact” mean? There is no shortage of possibilities. The bill is far too vague.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Beauport—Limoilou for sharing his time with me and for ably outlining both his support for the bill and his concerns.

Others have mentioned it, but just to put it in context, New Democrats will support the bill at second reading. However, as the member for Halifax outlined, we have a number of concerns. What we are talking about is the fact that the bill, which proposes making Sable Island Canada's 43rd national park, has the support of national and local environmental groups. However, there are a number of concerns with respect to drafting. It requires study at committee.

The bill would ban drilling within one nautical mile of the island as well as drilling on the surface of the island. Unusually, exploration activities would be allowed on the island, a first for a national park. These exploration activities would be limited to those that are low impact. However, this term is currently undefined.

Parks Canada would also have to be consulted by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board before permits for petroleum-related activities could be issued. The board would be given the discretion to include conditions for mitigation or remedial measures for the company to address with respect to the impact of the proposed project on the park.

It is not just New Democrats who are raising concerns that need to be considered at committee. CPAWS testified at the Senate committee, but it also issued a press release, which stated:

In our view, it is unacceptable to allow oil and gas exploration inside a national park.... Even low-impact activities can be detrimental to such a sensitive ecosystem, and we need to take all necessary precautions to ensure that the ecological integrity of the island is the management priority.

To ensure that conservation remains the top priority for the management of the island, CPAWS continues to advocate for developing off-site visitor experiences, limits to visitor numbers, continued scientific research on the island, and restrictions on oil and gas development.

I am going to turn to the west coast, because although we have very different ecosystems, there are some commonalities that are important to highlight in the context of talking about Sable Island. I want to start by pointing to a report by the Royal Society of Canada in 2009. CBC reported on this in 2012, with the headline “Canada failing its oceans, biodiversity panel finds”. It went on to say:

An expert panel investigating the state of Canadian marine biodiversity has accused the government of failing to protect the country's oceans, leaving marine life threatened and the nation's ocean species at risk.

It is talking about risk to Chinook salmon, which, of course, are iconic on the west coast. It is related to national parks, because these protected areas provide avenues for biodiversity to flourish, and when we do not do a good job of protecting them, and we talk about things like potential exploratory drilling for oil and gas, we start to wonder whether the priority is the protection of the environment. The story went on to say:

“It leaves huge discretionary powers to the minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is given no science-based guidelines, targets or principles,” the report said. “The panel found not lack of knowledge or lack of sound policy, but a consistent, disheartening lack of action on well-established knowledge and best-practice and policies, some of which have been around for years”.

It goes on to say that among the species the panel listed at being at risk of extinction is the Chinook salmon.

When we are talking about protected areas and national parks, I want to give a couple of examples from my area of the country. They are instructive in terms of both the actions that have been taken to protect these areas and the continuing risks. These are in the context of what we need to consider with regard to Sable Island.

I want to start with the southern Strait of Georgia. This is from a report called “How Deep Did Canada Dare?” One of the interesting things they did was rate these protected areas. In the particular case of the Southern Strait of Georgia, the report says that progress has been significant but conservation measures remain uncertain.

That is part of the concern that has been raised with regard to Sable Island. What will those conservation measures look like? Will there be enough resources put in place? Will Parks Canada, Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans do their part to ensure the ongoing protection of this very special area? I think most Canadians have heard of Sable Island

With regard to the southern Strait of Georgia, I want to point out a couple of important facts. CPAWS says:

Although Parks Canada and the BC government have been working on the feasibility study for over 10 years, it is still not completed. In the meantime, the Southern Strait of Georgia is open to intensive shipping and heavy recreational fishing use. While the Canadian and BC governments have agreed to proceed with the NMCA [the National Marine Conservation Area], no specific protection measures have yet been outlined. We are also concerned that a vaguely defined and “phased approach“ to establishment may be used, which would leave much of the area unprotected for years to come.

I come back to some of the language around low impact on Sable Island. The same kind of concerns are being raised. Low impact has not been defined, and we have the same kinds of issues around a vaguely defined phased approach.

These are questions that need to be asked at committee about more definition, more targets and more timelines.

What is at stake when we are talking about the southern Strait of Georgia?

[T]his body of water between the southern BC mainland and Vancouver Island has long been revered for its role in nurturing both human and natural ecosystems. It includes critical habitat of the federally endangered southern resident killer whale and many fish species, including rock fish, lingcod and herring.

Approximately two million shorebirds and seabirds use the region's estuaries, tidal flats and coastal waters as summering, staging and wintering grounds. Harbour seals are year-round residents. Steller and California sea lions are present during the winter months. Many “world giants” make their home here, such as the world's largest octopus, sea urchin, nudibranch, anemone, intertidal clam, sea star, scallop and barnacle.

CPAWS goes on in the article to talk about the human threat to this very important ecosystem. One of them, aside from urbanization and increased shipping, is the threat of increased oil tanker traffic through the area.

The sad thing about this is that in 1971, the federal government reported that “the Gulf Islands and the Saanich Inlet area should become a National Marine Park. The area is in the process of rapid development, so prompt action is required if its natural charm is to be preserved”.

Then for 25 years, there was no progress. It was only because of organizations like CPAWS, which spearheaded the development of the southern Strait of Georgia marine conservation network, that it brought together a coalition to work on this special area. Of course, part of this is on the boundary of my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. The people where I live really care about the health of the waters around our area and are concerned about making sure that we all take seriously our responsibility for protection and preservation.

I want to touch on another special area outside of my riding called the Hecate Strait glass sponge reefs. These are special reefs. The goal of CPAWS and others is “full legal, long-term protection as an Oceans Act Marine Protected Area and designated by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site for the Glass Sponge Reefs in Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound”.

The reason I raise this is because this is such a unique area. CPAWS talks about the uniqueness of it in this report. It says:

These unique marine animals were first discovered off the coast of BC in the 1980s and are the only known living glass sponge reefs of this size anywhere in the world.

We have something so special in British Columbia. The Hecate Strait glass sponge reefs are estimated to be 9,000 years old and reach 25 metres in height, the size of an eight-storey building.

The reason I bring this up in the context of Sable Island is because we know what is damaging these fragile ecosystems, the glass sponge reefs. Some steps have been taken. The bottom trawling that was seriously damaging these reefs was finally halted, but it has not stopped some of the sedimentation and some of the trawling that is impacting on this fragile area outside of the protected zone.

When people are looking at Sable Island and the protection zone around it of one nautical mile, they need to carefully think about whether activities just outside of that one-nautical-mile zone are going to impact on the health and well-being of Sable Island.

I am pleased to be able to bring these facts forward for consideration in the House. I hope that there is a fulsome debate at committee. I hope we will hear from witnesses at committee so as to consider some of these implications.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the member a question. So far tonight, I have asked the parliamentary secretary a question, I have raised my concerns with the member for Halifax and I have asked the minister a question and spoken to him.

My concern is regarding a slippery slope.

Sable Island is being created in the middle of oil and gas exploration. I want to be assured that this is not setting a precedent or creating an opening or a foot in the door that will result in development in future parks.

I wonder what my colleague thinks about this.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to use the glass sponge reef again. A very similar concern has been raised.

CPAWS raised the issue that if the moratorium on oil and gas exploration and development off the B.C. coast is lifted, offshore oil and gas activities surrounding the reefs could threaten their future health as these activities would increase the shipping of oil. That could lead to spills, which would threaten the reef's long-term survival.

The member is absolutely right to raise that issue. We are facing that issue in many cases off the coast of British Columbia, where we have, for example, a proposed northern gateway pipeline that is under review. That will increase oil tanker traffic. We have also had the commissioner for sustainability and the environment raise serious concerns about our ability to contain oil spills. Once that oil is in the environment, we know from the experiences with the Exxon Valdez that it is not an easy matter to clean these spills up. The long-term impacts on such fragile ecosystems is unimaginable.

It is very important that those factors be considered at committee.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns my two colleagues have about maintenance, oversight and the resources that are required for creating a park, in light of what has happened in a number of parks across Canada.

I would like my colleague to share her impressions of my bill, which would protect Gatineau Park, a park that many people know and use in the national capital region. I would like her to talk about how much people love this park, which is truly in an urban setting.

I heard the Minister of the Environment say that it was wonderful to have a park in an urban area. We have this wonderful opportunity to have one very close to us.

Can my colleague share her opinion on this?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things about Canada is that we are so blessed to have these incredible spaces that are readily available. They are not only out in the wild. In British Columbia we have some incredible, beautiful, remote places, but we are lucky to have urban parks as well. These urban parks mean that citizens or residents do not have to travel for hours and have pots of money to be able to do those kinds of things.

It is very important to protect the parks that are closer to urban centres. They give us an opportunity to connect young people with the importance of protecting these areas so that they can experience them and see them first-hand. Hopefully, they will also take up the cause as they grow older, in terms of advocating for protection and the appropriate resources to look after the parks and facilities available to us.

I would absolutely agree with the member for Hull—Aylmer that it is very important to designate not only the beautiful places like Sable Island but some of the urban park areas as well.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my privilege today to rise in this House for the purpose of expressing my support for Bill S-15 and, in particular, for taking the action necessary to protect Sable Island as a national park reserve under the Canada National Parks Act.

Throughout this debate and subsequent examination of Bill S-15 by a committee of the House, we are being asked to preside over an historic event: the creation of a new national park.

This is a unique opportunity for all the members of this House. In effect, we are being asked to make a clear and conscious decision to protect Sable Island for all time. We are being handed the opportunity to pass on to future generations this iconic island with its famed wild horses and important wildlife habitat. We are providing to our children a legacy of a natural area and all its inherent stories for them to enjoy and to pass on to the next generation.

It might seem at first glance that this is a rather short and inconspicuous piece of legislation, but in reality this is the key to ensuring that Sable Island will, as the dedication clause in the Canada National Parks Act states, be dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment and be maintained and made use of so as to leave it unimpaired for the enjoyment of many future generations.

I stand in this House in support of making that decision by speaking in favour of Bill S-15.

I can only imagine standing on the beaches of Sable Island, wondering how this island came to be. I can imagine asking how it is that in the midst of the Atlantic Ocean, perched on a lonely outcrop of the continental shelf, this sandbar survives all the ocean can pound it with.

How is it that so many ships came to their last port of call on Sable Island as one of hundreds of shipwrecks? How is it that horses and endangered birds survive on this desolate outpost of dunes and sparse vegetation? What sheer idealism moves some of the current residents to spend months out here, guarding this island on behalf of all Canadians?

I look forward to the initiatives that Parks Canada is going to undertake to share the rich story of Sable Island and to answer these and other questions.

Perhaps a more direct question to consider this evening as we debate the proposal to protect Sable Island under the Canada National Parks Act is how we got to the point of designating Sable Island as a national park forever.

Early conservation efforts regarding Sable Island were merely targeted and reactive. As we have heard, the government passed regulations as long ago as 1961 to protect the horses of Sable Island from being removed from the island. These were called the Sable Island Regulations, and they specifically protected the island through restrictions aimed at controlling access and controlling certain types of activities.

In the late 1960s, the Department of Transport put an end to plans to remove mineral-rich sands from the surface of this island, even after the entire island had already been staked.

The story goes on. A more forward-looking conservation approach to Sable Island was first adopted in 1977, when Sable Island was designated as a migratory bird sanctuary under the Migratory Bird Convention Act. The purpose of this designation was to protect migratory birds, including their nests and eggs, a very important thing to do.

However, a migratory bird sanctuary in itself does not protect the other wildlife species or their habitat on Sable Island. In addition, the regulations only apply when migratory birds are actually nesting, so they are not an effective conservation tool for the rest of the year.

Things continued to develop and, more recently, specific areas of the island have also been designated as “critical habitat” for the endangered roseate tern under the Species at Risk Act.

Then, in 1998, working with the Province of Nova Scotia and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service prepared a key document entitled “Conservation Strategy for Sable Island”. The overall goal was to set a framework for the preservation of the physical integrity and biological diversity of Sable Island. I note that it was initiated under a former government.

It was observed that the island had been used by humans for over 400 years and that this use had in fact changed the island, permanently altering its pre-contact ecosystem, yet it was time to develop a conservation strategy to define the environmental limits within which future activities should proceed.

In brief, the essence of the strategy was to protect the existing terrain from human-induced destabilization and to conserve the island's flora and fauna. That was 1998.

Of particular interest to our debate tonight is the part of the strategy dealing with the legal designation of Sable Island. The authors of the document observed that while the application of the Sable Island Regulations and the Migratory Birds Convention Act,

...have been relatively effective in protecting Sable Island, there are many parts of the island's natural environment which, at present, do not receive adequate protection under the law.

As a result, the strategy wisely recommended that enhanced legal protection should be sought that provides more comprehensive protection to the island's natural value. That is what we have been moving toward all of these years.

Finally, in June 2008, under the present government, work to designate Sable Island as a federal protected area was first announced by the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean. At that time, he announced funding under the health of the oceans initiative to maintain a year-round weather station on Sable Island.

I believe it is worth recounting the words of the hon. member from that day. This is what he said:

We believe that it is in the best interest of Canadians to ensure that Sable Island is preserved for generations to come.... Today's announcement is further proof of our Government's commitment to protecting and preserving our environment in Atlantic Canada.

These were prescient words, because with that announcement the journey to this very evening and to Bill S-15 was under way.

It was in 2009, as the Government of Canada and the Province of Nova Scotia were discussing progress on the protection of Sable Island, that the idea of protecting the island as a national park was first introduced.

In January 2010, the two governments signed a memorandum of understanding, an MOU, respecting the establishment of a federal protected area on Sable Island in the province of Nova Scotia. Finally, after all those years, a government was willing to move.

Recognizing that Sable Island possesses national significance, the two governments agreed to work together to determine if Sable Island should be protected as a national wildlife area under the Canada Wildlife Act or as a national park under the Canada National Parks Act.

By the terms of the agreement, the governments appointed a task force for the purpose of recommending which type of federally protected area should be embraced. This was going to be a well-thought-out process.

It is important to note that from day one of the process, the MOU between the two governments was clear that:

...no recommendation regarding the potential designation or creation of a federal protected area for Sable Island will have an adverse impact on Canada's or Nova Scotia's interest in offshore petroleum resources including those in the Sable Island area....

It was clear from the start that, no matter what type of protected area was recommended, it had to take into account the existence of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resource Accord Implementation Act, a mouthful, but really something that took precedence over all other federal legislation in this region, previously negotiated with the province, and of course it had to also take into account the role of the offshore petroleum board itself.

What came next in this rather fascinating history of development? It was on Earth Day, April 22, 2010, that the Canada-Nova Scotia Sable Island Task Force recommended to the Government of Canada and the province of Nova Scotia that Sable Island should be designated as a national park under the Canada National Parks Act. In comparing the two types of federal protected areas, the task force concluded that the national park designation would convey a number of additional public benefits.

First, as a national park, Sable Island would be protected and presented within a national network of national parks and would be recognized as one of Canada's premier natural and cultural icons.

Second, while petroleum resources would remain available to industry offshore, a national park places a stronger emphasis on the protection from exploitation and development of non-petroleum resources found in the subsurface of Sable Island.

Next, as a national park, the designation brings a stronger emphasis to the conservation and preservation of archeological and cultural resources, also an important factor.

Finally, the diversity of program objectives required in a national park, which include protection, visitor experience and engagement with stakeholders, would better serve to maintain a year-round human presence on the island.

In its conclusion, the task force noted something that many associated with Sable Island have come to learn, and that is the strong appreciation and passion and depth of interest that citizens share for the future of Sable Island. It was also clear through the work of the task force that all the sectors were committed to achieve a renewed future for Sable Island.

Perhaps that speaks to what we are trying to accomplish with Bill S-15, and that is a renewed future for Sable Island.

In May 2010, the two governments announced their decision to undertake consultations and to negotiate an agreement for the designation and protection of Sable Island under the Canada National Parks Act.

We might ask what the public thought of this idea, turning Sable Island into a national park. This is quite an important consideration as we consider the merits of Bill S-15. During the summer of 2010, Parks Canada held three open houses in Halifax, where more than 200 people attended. Many took the time to have in-depth discussions with Parks Canada staff and to submit written submissions, online submissions, emails, letters and telephone messages in response to Parks Canada's web page, newsletter and advertisements.

Members will be astounded to learn that Parks Canada received more than 2,800 responses, including 235 detailed submissions. As Parks Canada observed in its report on these consultations, the volume and quality of responses Parks Canada received are testament to the strong link that many Nova Scotians and Canadians across this country feel for this very special place. Furthermore, the agency noted, “Sable Island and its isolated sand dunes hold a special place in the hearts and minds of Canadians”.

Nova Scotians, among whom I have my roots, feel a particular tie to Sable, as it figures prominently in their history and looms large in their imagination.

The passion and great interest Canadians have in Sable Island was evident in the submissions Parks Canada received from across Canada and even from abroad expressing support and highlighting ideas, concerns and vision for the future of Sable Island as a national park.

What were the views of Canadians on the idea of designating Sable Island a national park? What did they have to say?

Well, in general, Parks Canada reported that Canadians support the proposed national park designation. They feel it is important to maintain the ecological integrity and protect the cultural resources of Sable. They are interested in visitor experience opportunities on the island that, however, are limited in scope and scale and well managed. They want off-island experiences and educational opportunities. Canadians are also seeking careful management of natural resources, including petroleum. Last but certainly not least, they are concerned about wildlife management.

Buoyed by the strong support that the consultations revealed for protecting Sable Island as a national park, officials moved to complete the negotiation of a memorandum of agreement for a national park at Sable Island. The next step in this great story is that on October 17, 2011, our Minister of the Environment and the minister responsible for Parks Canada joined with the hon. Darrell Dexter, Premier of Nova Scotia, in signing the national park establishment agreement.

Bill S-15 seeks to put into legislation many of the elements of that 2011 national park establishment agreement, including some very important things, which I will mention.

First of all, there would be a ban on drilling from the surface of Sable Island out to one nautical mile. Second, there would be a restriction of surface access rights for petroleum-related activities to only four very limited and very specific activities. Finally, there would be a requirement for the offshore petroleum board to consult Parks Canada should it consider authorizing even any of those four very limited activities.

In recognition of the Province of Nova Scotia's ongoing interest in the future of Sable Island, the establishment agreement also provides for a Canada-Nova Scotia committee to enable the province to provide input and advice respecting the operation of the national park reserve. In addition, subject to reasonable conditions, Parks Canada would permit Nova Scotia to continue to carry out environmental, climate change, weather and air monitoring programs on Sable Island as well as scientific research.

As we bring to a close this first part of the journey to renew the future of Sable Island, it is important not to forget those whose personal and professional dedication to this island has left us with this marvellous opportunity.

I am thinking of those officials at the Canadian Coast Guard, the Meteorological Service of Canada and the Canadian Wildlife Service, who for decades watched over Sable Island for the rest of us.

I am also thinking of those individuals and organizations, such as long-time resident and volunteer guardian, Zoe Lucas, as well as the Green Horse Society and the Sable Island Preservation Trust.

I am thinking of the Province of Nova Scotia and companies like Exxon Mobil, which have acted in the public good by always keeping conservation of Sable Island in the forefront of their actions in this region.

I call on this chamber to thank the Province of Nova Scotia, which on May 10 of this year gave royal assent to its bill amending the legislation to put into place the legislated ban against drilling. It now rests with this chamber to complete our work so that both governments would be able to give effect to their respective acts, thereby finally protecting Sable Island in law under the National Parks Act.

I also want to mention that Parks Canada will continue its work with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia.

In conclusion, I am very proud to have had the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill S-15 and to put on record my support for renewing the future of Sable Island as a national park reserve under the Canada National Parks Act.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, we are getting a national park. My goodness, that is always nice and this one is especially great.

I have been off the coast of Nova Scotia, where the waters can sometimes sway us to and fro. It is always so nice. We have a beautiful country. Now, in this House, we are going to collectively guarantee that there will be an extra little slice just for us and ensure that we leave behind a little more than we received. At least, we are going to figure out how to leave behind at least as much as we received, not less.

Unfortunately, the problem is that this government's record when it comes to the environment is not up to snuff. Sometimes the Conservatives rush through things.

I would like my distinguished colleague to say that I am right to be enthusiastic, that we are getting a nice park and it will never be threatened.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in some respects my colleague's question could be considered a lobbed question. I appreciate it because it gives me the opportunity to reassure him, based on the government's record. Since 2006, Parks Canada has realized an astounding number of environmental achievements, and these include the sixfold expansion of the boundary of Nahanni National Park Reserve to more than 30,000 square kilometres. Parks Canada was awarded the Royal Canadian Geographic Society gold medal, the highest honour of that society, for this achievement.

There has also been the creation of the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area and Haida Heritage Site; the creation of Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area at more than 10,000 square kilometres including lakebed islands and north shore lands, the largest freshwater marine protected area in the world; the successful reintroduction of plains bison and the black-footed ferret, an animal once thought to be extinct; the establishment of the Sahoyúé-§ehdacho National Historic Site over the last five years; actions on the ground and projects restoring forest health in Gros Morne National Park; restoring stream connectivity in Atlantic national parks; dune ecosystem restoration of Pacific Rim National Park Reserve; Little Port Joli Estuary restoration in Kejimkujik.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was important to lay out the history of the park. I have a question regarding clause 7. What would be the new mechanism for coordination and co-operation between Parks Canada and the offshore petroleum board? This is key, as in the amendments to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, it states: “Before deciding whether to issue the authorization, the Board shall consider any advice...”.

That is, the offshore board is not bound to the recommendations of Parks Canada. Who is looking after the interests of the environment on Sable Island if the offshore board is not bound by the decision?

I also understand from Parks Canada that the MOU defining the rules of the relationship will be put in place after the park is established.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's question, which is important and to the point. My colleague from across the way is well familiar with the variety of mechanisms that are in place whenever an undertaking of the nature she describes is begun in Canada and, among other things, whether it is the offshore petroleum board or any other agency that is engaged in approving of such projects, there is an assessment that is done, which is quite strenuous, generally speaking, and would be performed in such a case.

I do not have any reason to doubt that the assessments performed by the offshore petroleum board would be any less stringent than any of the others we conduct on an almost daily basis right across this country. Of course, those would also be subject to the limitations in this amendment to the act, which require no drilling within one nautical mile of the island and also very strict conditions for necessary limited activities on the island.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his more than enthusiastic speech. It was a pleasure for me to serve alongside him on the environment committee for a long time. He is an excellent examiner on that committee, gets to the root of the matter very quickly, separates the wheat from the chaff, as we like to say on the Prairies, and always gets to the heart of the matter.

He spoke in his speech quite extensively about the protections that would be afforded by being part of a national parks system under the National Parks Act and the park reserve status. I am wondering if he could elaborate and tell us what the difference is. He mentioned the protection under the Migratory Birds Convention Act and some of the other protections that were in place. I would ask him to expand on the difference in the levels of protection and what is going to happen insofar as not only this park but all of the other parks and protected areas that this government has created with regard to the long-term preservation of species, our ecosystem, and the biological and genetic integrity of all of the wildlife in Canada.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's kind comments. The respect I have for him is such that I take it as very high praise, indeed, when he says such kind things about me because he himself is well accomplished in this place, particularly in areas of environmental management.

Indeed, that is where I will pick up. As a national park, the area in question, Sable Island, as well as any national park, is subject to management and careful husbandry and protection of habitat and species and controlled access by the public. It would defeat the point of national parks if there were no access by the public, but the usage of a park is regulated and managed in a way that will in fact maximize the natural biodiversity. That is the kind of approach that I expect will be taken with this park.

In addition, may I say that our national parks are a way of connecting Canadians to nature and getting people to care about our natural environment. It is often said that is the mark of a true Canadian, the love for the outdoor natural environment, and our national parks very much contribute to that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that my hon. friend from Kitchener Centre probably has no reason to doubt that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board could do a decent and adequate rigorous environmental assessment. Unfortunately, I have personal experience that leads me to know that it does not do any such thing. It is, in a word, slipshod, incompetent, and a very poor board to have any jurisdiction over a national park.

Nature Canada's website describes this approach of allowing the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to have regulation of a national park as a “dangerous precedent”. The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board ignored expert advice and approved seismic testing during the migration of blue whales through the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This board misrepresented a multi-stakeholder group, which I was part of, that worked for two years to come up with recommendations for the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It absolutely misrepresented our results in its press release.

There is a technical term for this board. It is called Mickey Mouse. This is a dangerous precedent. This clause must be removed.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say that I always find it regrettable when an opposition member stands in the House and maligns ordinary Canadians who have been given a job to do in the interests of all of us and public service. It is all too easy for members, like the one who just spoke, to stand up and insult people publicly in the chamber, where they have immunity. I find it regrettable and, if I may say in a final nod to the member, I find it somewhat out of character for her to so malign individuals who are really putting themselves in a position of public trust.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reassure the member for Kitchener Centre that everything I just said in this House I have said previously on the CBC.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the previous speaker that the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, herself a proud Nova Scotian, did not malign any one individual. She mentioned the very serious concerns about the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, which I myself have very serious concerns about as well.

I want to start off today by thanking the government for entering into discussions to ensure that Sable Island possibly could be a preservation site and conservation site for as long as this planet exists.

I just want to understand a couple of things. This is the same government that had massive cuts to Parks Canada. This is the same government that we hear speech after speech from the Conservatives talking about how great this legislation is, how great it would be for Sable Island, yet what do they do? They invoke time allocation on this debate. Sable Island was there long before any of us were here. Hopefully, Sable Island will be there for many years after we are gone. Therefore, moving time allocation on important legislation like this is unconscionable. I would truly love for someone over there to explain to the Canadian people why they felt it necessary to invoke time allocation, unless they plan to prorogue Parliament very soon and thus they know that this bill would end up dead.

I am in favour of turning Sable Island into a national park reserve. However, like my hon. colleague for Halifax, I have some concerns that need to be addressed. That is why the NDP will be supporting that this legislation go to committee. We do not have much trust in that side, but we hope and trust that my colleague from Halifax will be able to invite any and all witnesses that her party wishes to bring forward, that the Liberal Party would be able to do the same, and that the Green Party could make submissions as well, to ensure that every single person who has reason to be concerned about Sable Island in the future would have the right to say so. We are talking about the Mi'kmaq, the first nations, the provinces, the oil and gas sector, the conservationists and the fishermen. All these people need to be heard.

It is too bad the Conservatives could not make a national park out of the Senate. That would be great. Lots of people could go and visit that room and the $92 million that is spent on the Senate could go to preserve Sable Island and all of the other parks we have in Canada and maybe even create a few more. Then those senators could be added to the Species at Risk Act. That would be a wonderful thing.

Here is the problem. I have heard these great Conservatives say time and time again that Sable Island would be preserved for future generations to come. That is wrong. I wish the Conservatives would get that out of their heads. Sable Island is not for human beings. It is not for people.

Farley Mowat, who is a great World War II veteran, a conservationist and a fantastic author, said time and time again, and my colleague, the member from the Green Party knows this well because we were together when he said it, “We, as humans, have an obligation to ensure to protect our environment. We have an obligation to protect 'the others'.” What he meant by “the others” were things like bugs, snakes, horses, plants, birds and seals. The other species that inhabit this earth deserve to have their place as well.

Sable Island is not like Banff National Park. It is not like Kluane in the Yukon. It is not like South Moresby. It is not like Nahanni. It is not like Kejimkujik. It is not like any other park out there where humans can go and interact and have fun and enjoy the beautiful parts of Canada that are absolutely gorgeous. Sable Island is so fragile and so special that we should limit, with the most extreme caution, the number of people who actually go to that island.

My colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's bragged about the fact he has been there dozens of times. He has been there two dozen times and I say he has been there 23 times too often. I have had the opportunity to go to Sable Island. I can assure members that it is a spiritual experience. It is beautiful. However, I felt guilty being there. I felt that I should not have been there. The reality is that with those horses, the plants and the birds, it is absolutely outstanding.

There are reasons why some people are very concerned about the bill and are very concerned about the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

I remember very clearly, as a private citizen, in 1995, attending a meeting at the Waverley fire hall in Waverley, Nova Scotia, which is now in my riding. The Sable gas people were there and the petroleum boards were all there. They had maps of the ocean, which had a dark black mark on Sable Island. It was blacked out. The first question I asked was why it was blacked out. They said, “That's Sable Island. We have no intention of touching it, ever. We are leaving it alone. It's too fragile”.

I understand the need for oil and gas exploration. I drive a car, I have a house that burns oil and I fly back and forth all the time. I understand that. I was so proud of the fact that these experts were saying that Sable Island was going to be left alone, with a mile buffer around it. I felt really good about that.

However, we were betrayed by the gas and oil sector. We were betrayed by other people. In fact, they did do seismic testing on that island. I remember it very well how—I cannot say what I want to say—upset I was that we were lied to at these meetings. These were professional people, and they lied to us. They said they would never do seismic testing on Sable Island, and they did.

My very serious concern is that if we do not do this bill right, if we do not put in the concrete measures to ensure we never allow seismic testing on the island ever again, I will not have a good night's sleep, assured that those horses, those birds, those plants and other species that inhabit that island are able to do what they do in God's wonder, to do what they have done for hundreds of years and, hopefully, for hundreds years more.

That island is not for people. The island is for the others. I wish everyone in this Parliament and across Canada would get that into their heads. This is too fragile an ecosystem and it needs to be, as best we can, left alone.

I appreciate the Minister of the Environment and the parliamentary secretary indicating that, yes, in some certain cases, in emergencies, oil and gas workers or people who find themselves in serious trouble could go to the island for rescue, because it is the graveyard of the Atlantic. I understand that, and under strict controls and under strict protocols that is something I think we can all accept. I appreciate that fact.

However, we need assurances from the Minister of the Environment and the government that when this bill gets second reading there will be no shenanigans at that committee, that there will be no time allocation, that there will be no rushing into in camera, as every committee here in this House does. We need to ensure that this is a public forum for all Canadians who are concerned about this precious jewel in the Atlantic and ensure that we do exactly what we are saying here today; that is that we protect the integrity of Sable Island for many years to come.

At the same time, the government has made massive cuts to Parks Canada. We have never heard anything, yet, about funding this. We would like to see where the dollars are going to come from, where the money is coming from. One of the ideas the member for Halifax indicated, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment also indicated, is a historical and interpretive centre in Halifax. Who is going to pay for that? Where is the money going to come from? What is it going to look like? We cannot have everybody going out to Sable Island to see it. It would be much better to have that interpretive centre in the community of Halifax or another community; I am not really particularly concerned about that. I just want to ensure that the dollars will be there to ensure that all Canadians, in fact, all world visitors who come to the area, will get to know that 290 kilometres from the east coast lies one of the most beautiful places on the planet.

It is important that we get it right. That is why the NDP, led by our critic from Halifax, has indicated our support for this legislation to second reading.

However, if we see a lot of games being played there, there is no guarantee that support will come afterwards. My colleague from Halifax has said very clearly that she so desperately wants to work with the parliamentary secretary, so desperately wants to work with the Minister of the Environment, and with the Conservative government, in order to ensure we get the legislation right.

That is uncommon in this place. Normally, anything the Conservatives do would just shut it down. Anything we say, they shut us down. This is an opportunity, in a bi-partisan manner, to work co-operatively together and get it right. I am not sure why the Minister of the Environment or the Prime Minister would not want to pursue that and show Canadians that, yes, Parliament can work together as it has on many other issues.

I was here when the protection of the Sable Island gully was there. In fact, I was quite proud of that because that was where the northern bottlenose whale lived. They offered limited protection to that area. It is a beautiful gully just off of Sable Island. It is absolutely gorgeous. I have never been to the bottom of it, but everything I have seen of it and the species that live under those waters is unbelievable. The Liberal government at the time worked co-operatively to get that done.

We need to ensure that the resources for our Coast Guard, Parks Canada and Environment Canada are there to ensure the integrity of this legislation is matched not only in words but in dollars as well. That is what we need to discuss at the committee stage as well.

We have been betrayed before. Not by the Conservative government, though, I will give it credit for that. It was not in power. We were betrayed by the provincial and federal governments at that time.

I can assure the House that there are a lot of environmental groups out there. I know the Ecology Action Centre and Mr. Mark Butler, one of the great environmentalists we have on the east coast, are very concerned about this legislation. Our colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands indicated the concerns of allowing the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board any kind of management say on anything regarding this Island.

Those are serious questions that need to be asked. I am not saying that someone is right or someone is wrong, but let us get the experts in. Let us get the people in at the committee stage in an unhurried manner, where we can take our time and do it right. If we do that, we can truly leave a legacy not just for people, but for the others with which we share this beautiful planet. That is the beauty of Parliament, when we can work together and achieve something that is greater than ourselves.

I will give the government credit. I used to live in Yukon near Nahanni, which is absolutely gorgeous. When that size increased, I was shouting from the rooftops. I thought that was absolutely wonderful. I remember our colleague, Svend Robinson, was arrested defending South Moresby. Look at it now. It is one of the most beautiful and enchanting areas on the planet on the Queen Charlotte Islands. He risked everything to ensure that happened.

We want to ensure that people do not have to protest in the streets of Halifax to ensure the protection of Sable Island. It simply does not have to happen. We can work in a co-operative manner and get it done.

I will offer some advice for the minister, though. There are a lot more protected marine areas that we need to have in our country and I am proud to hear him say Lancaster Sound. I am proud to see the areas of the Bay St. Lawrence and also on the west coast. I have had the opportunity to live in British Columbia and Yukon and now in Nova Scotia.

This is truly an absolutely gorgeous country. When we are connected in this regard, it is amazing what terrestrial and aquatic areas we have to enjoy in many cases. However, there are certain areas of the country which, in my personal view, should be left alone. Sable Island is one of them.

I give top credit to Zoe Lucas. She is only about 5'2" or 5'3", but she is dynamite. She knows more about Sable than the House collectively will ever get to learn. She is amazing, but she is one person. We need to ensure that it is not just her, because one day she may not be with us. She has worked in the preservation, acknowledgement and awareness of Sable Island. She has brought that to many people in Canada and around the world to ensure the integrity of that beautiful island.

The minister knows as he has been there. He understands the spiritual nature of that place. The last thing we need to see is hundreds of people showing up, taking pictures of horses and running around trying to pet them, stepping on their grounds and grass and everything else.

I have another concern. When I was on the fisheries committee for many years, we had a very serious issue with grey seals. Sable Island is the home of many grey seals. Their population has exploded.

One thing that we in the NDP will never accept is the cull of a wild species, where people shoot and kill the animals and they sink to the bottom and become crab or lobster bait. That is unacceptable. However, we will support a harvest of seals as long as the seals are utilized, whether turned into animal feed or other product. We would not allow an opportunity to go and kill 20,000 or 30,000 seals and then let them sink to the bottom. That does not make this country look very good internationally. However, if we utilize that seal product in a proper humane harvest, that would be good husbandry of the species, and would also protect the integrity of the island.

The minister probably knows that when that many seals congregate on a shifting sandbar like that, it can cause havoc and a lot of damage. We want to ensure that the grey seals do not overrun the island and cause even greater damage. We want to control the species in a manner that is not only humane but offers economic opportunities for some fishermen, and utilizes the seal to its maximum potential. To just go out and kill a whole bunch of them and let them sink to the bottom is not the proper thing to do, and it is also very un-Canadian.

Therefore, we need to know this from the minister, and hopefully we will learn this at committee: If indeed there is a time to harvest some of these seals to reduce the numbers, would the Sable Island park reserve allow limited hunting of those seals in that particular area? If it does, would it be done from the land or from boats? Having that many fishermen tramping all over the island could not be a good thing.

These are the types of things, in terms of strict protocols, that we would need to address to ensure that this legislation is done correctly. We are very proud of the fact that the federal government and the great Province of Nova Scotia and its wonderful NDP government are working collaboratively on many of these issues. However, we still do not have all the answers we are looking for. My colleague from Halifax has done yeoman's work in this regard. I can assure members that when this gets to committee, she will be like a pit bull on a bone to ensure that this legislation is exactly what it should be.

The reality is that she is the only member of Parliament of the 308 of us who has Sable Island in her riding, and that is a wonderful thing. Not many people get to say that. I know I do not. I am surprised she has not changed the name of her riding to Halifax—Sable Island. I do have McNabs Island, by the way. If members ever get a chance they should come down and see McNabs Island. It is absolutely beautiful. It is the same with Lawlor Island, but people are not allowed to go on that one.

The reality is that these are jewels in the Halifax area and off the coast of Nova Scotia that are absolutely gorgeous. I invite my colleague over there from Kitchener to come on down and I will give him a personal tour of McNabs Island and the other island. However, I will not give him a tour of Sable Island. I would encourage him to leave it alone. We will have an interpretive centre, which hopefully the federal government will pay for, and we will walk him through that. In fact, my colleague from Halifax will walk him through it as well, and tell him all that he needs to know. However, we just encourage him with the greatest of respect not to go on the island, because that many people on the island, even if it is strictly controlled, could have unforeseen consequences.

We want to ensure that the bill is done correctly. We want to work in a co-operative manner with the government. We do not like time allocation on this bill, and I would hope that maybe the Minister of the Environment could stand in his place and ask why the Conservatives moved time allocation on this very sensitive legislation.

I hope that, with our colleague from Halifax and the great NDP working with the Conservatives and our Liberal colleagues and Green Party colleagues, we will ensure that we get the right legislation to ensure perpetuity for Sable Island park reserve now and in the future.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The Chair appreciates that the member has respected his time allocation this evening.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a pit bull on a bone: I have never thought of the member in those conditions before, but it is quite vivid indeed.

I appreciate the member's complimenting this government on Nahanni and Sable Island park. The Prime Minister has set aside more land for parks in this country than any prime minister in our history, I believe.

I appreciated all of the speeches I heard tonight. It became apparent that the NDP has a real lack of trust in relation to this issue. All I heard in their speeches was, “Congratulations, great job, but we do not trust you”. The Liberals said that they would have done it if they had just had another 13 or 14 years, and of course the Green Party member mentioned that we will not get it right no matter what we do.

I do appreciate all of the members' speeches and the fact that they have complimented this government on yet another great initiative.

After hearing the speech by the member opposite, I can tell for certain that there is nothing else to be said that has not already been said. I am wondering if the member would try to persuade other members of his caucus to allow this matter to go to committee as soon as possible, and possibly agree to do so in a timely fashion so that we could go to sleep sometime before midnight tonight, or at least have it passed before today's hour passes.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from Fort McMurray—Athabasca, a beautiful place in Alberta. I want to compliment one of the finest mothers of all time, Frances Jean. That member is lucky to have one of the finest mothers of all time. I would even say that about my own mother, who is one of the best. His mother is also one of the best. I would like him to let her know that we will always have Paris, but that is another side story.

My colleague talked about trust. The question of trust arises out of the government moving time allocation on this legislation. The Conservatives have not answered that question yet. Why did they move time allocation on it?

I understand moving time allocation on budgets and stuff of that nature, but I do not understand it on this legislation. That is where the trust has become broken, plus the fact that we have certain concerns with the bill that have not been properly addressed. Even though my colleague from Halifax has asked those questions, we have still not received answers.

My colleague can rest assured that we in the NDP, under the great leadership of our member from Outremont, will fully support this legislation going to committee. At committee stage we will determine if that trust can be regained.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously it takes someone from Nova Scotia to know the island. We debated this issue last Friday and we heard a few speeches. I spoke on the issue myself. We brought up some points, and it appears that the government is open to amendments.

The member brought up a good point about the money. Will there be money following once this is designated as a national park? I would like the member to comment. Once this legislation goes to committee, does he think the money will follow? At what point is the member going to ask for the money? Is it going to be at committee, after committee, or should we be asking for a certain amount of money while we are debating the bill, provided we have enough time? As well, I am not sure that we have enough time.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked an important question. These are fine words we are all talking about. There are words in the legislation, but there are no dollar figures around it. There are no financial estimates around it. What is it going to cost? Who is going to pay what, and from what department? What role would the province play in all of this?

There are other questions as well. We simply do not know. Hopefully those questions will be answered. We are not getting the answers here during the debate; hopefully we will get them during the committee process.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. It was riveting. Mine was not so riveting; it was more the fine details.

Our Conservative colleague talked about trust and asked why we are putting up speakers to debate the bill and not just going home. He should talk to his leadership and not my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore. We actually had a deal with the Conservatives to do this in an expedited manner, and they betrayed us. Now here we are in time allocation, debating this bill when we actually had a deal to do things differently.

My question for my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore is about this trust issue. We were not only stabbed in the back here in the House, but the Conservatives also told us not to worry about the cuts they are doing to Parks Canada because they will not actually affect services.

However, as my colleague well knows, Kejimkujik National Park in Nova Scotia does not open in the winter anymore. People went winter camping there. People love that park, and they would love to be able to use it all season.

I would ask my colleague what his level of trust is, based on the Conservatives' track record.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, individuals in my riding who worked for Parks Canada were laid off. Not just that, they were bumped by other people in the seniority system and had to compete for jobs because of the severe cuts to Parks Canada.

My colleague is right about Kejimkujik National Park. Something I would advise all of us to do would be to go winter camping in that area. It is a tremendous experience. However, we cannot do that anymore because of the cuts.

If the government is making cuts to these areas, what might happen to Sable Island in the future? That is why we are concerned. We are hearing these platitudes about the work being done, but then behind the scenes, it is making cuts to Parks Canada and laying off some great people.

What the Conservatives did to my colleague, the member for Halifax, in reversing a co-operative opportunity that it had, was simply unconscionable.

The NDP likes to give people the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to regain trust, but twice today the Conservatives betrayed that trust. I can assure members that my colleague from Halifax will not let it happen a third time.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech was stimulating.

He spoke about our co-operation with the Government of Nova Scotia. We also appreciate that co-operation. He mentioned it was an NDP government, but then went on to talk about endangered species. I wanted to confirm that he was not making a connection between those two.

The question I have for the member is the following. On the time allocation, we regret it on this side as much as those on the other side. If we could focus on the substance of these bills and move them through in a timely fashion, we would not have to resort to that parliamentary technique as often as we are.

Would the member not agree, from everything he said about the urgency of protecting this fragile asset off the coast of his province, that passing this bill quickly is the best thing we can do for Sable Island? Yes, it requires consideration in committee and yes, it requires consideration in this place. However, if we hold it up for days and days and do not finish it in this session, we are not meeting any of the imperatives that the member identified in his speech.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to read the speech again tomorrow when it comes out, that is not what I said.

I said that we had to ensure we got it right. We have to ensure that every witness, who has a concern about Sable, is offered the opportunity to come to Ottawa and debate this very serious issue. There is no rush to invoke time allocation.

While he did say that, my colleague from Halifax was working with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment on an arrangement to do just that, to get it to the committee. Unfortunately, the Conservatives betrayed that trust and moved time allocation. They did not have to do that.

If I could ask him a question, it would be this. Why did the Conservatives move time allocation on this? Why did they have to do that?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a fascinating debate here tonight, and I want to thank all the members who have taken part during speeches and questions and comments. I have to preface my remarks by saying that the previous speaker was riveting, as I think the member for Halifax and the Parliamentary Secretary said. I will be more focused on the details and the technical substance of the bill, plus I have never been accused of being riveting.

I am very pleased today to speak to the second part of Bill S-15 dealing with the establishment of Sable Island national park. It deals with three distinct matters: the amendment of section 4 of the Canada National Parks Act and amendments to sections 4 and 5 of that act. I will deal with each of these amendments in turn, found in clauses 13, 14 and 15 of the bill.

First, clause 13 of the bill proposes amendments to address concerns of the Standing Joint Committee of the Scrutiny of Regulations regarding section 4 of the Canada National Parks Act. Section 4 is one of the cornerstones of the act. It dedicates national parks to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to the act and the regulations, and provides that the parks are to be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

This wording has remained virtually unchanged for over eight decades and has served to guide the Parks Canada agency and its predecessor institutions in the establishment and operation of a system of national parks that is truly the pride of Canadians and the envy of the world. The amendments proposed in the bill do not change this intent. In fact, they leave this wording untouched.

The bill makes two amendments to section 4. It fixes the discrepancy between the English and the French versions, a change that does not alter the meaning of this clause.

The bill also adds a new subsection 4.(1.1) to clarify the authority of the minister of the environment to use sections 23 or 24 of the Parks Canada Agency Act to set fees in national parks. The wording of this clause in the bill was improved through an amendment made by the Senate. The current wording effectively avoids any misinterpretation of the intent of the proposed changes.

Clauses 14 and 15 of the bill deal with matters affecting particular national parks in western Canada. We have heard a very interesting debate from people, especially from Nova Scotia, debating Sable Island and the establishment of that national park. I would like to now describe how they address specifically the needs of two of Canada's oldest national parks in western Canada, Yoho National Park of Canada and Jasper National Park of Canada.

Clause 14 of the bill amends the descriptions of the commercial zones for the community of Field, British Columbia, located within Yoho National Park of Canada. I remind the House that the Canada National Parks Act requires all communities within a national park to have a community plan that sets out a vision, management principles and design parameters. The community plans also identify the zoning regime, including commercial zones and associated growth limits.

Since 2004, development in the communities must be consistent with the commercial zones as well as with the maximum commercial floor area as set out under schedule 4 of the Canada National Parks Act. A legislative amendment is required to make any changes in these provisions.

The first community plan for Field was prepared by Parks Canada in 1999 and led to the description of commercial zones and the commercial floor area growth limit, which are currently found in schedule 4 of the Canada National Parks Act.

In 2006, Parks Canada assessed the ecological, social and economic health of Field and released its findings in a state of the community report. The report noted that zoning was restricting the range of services visitors had come to expect in a national park, the community's economic viability and affordability for community residents. Many of the report's recommendations have been implemented, but those associated with changing commercial zones require an amendment to schedule 4 of the CNPA.

Bill S-15 proposes three minor zoning changes to schedule 4 for certain properties in Field.

When commercial zones in national park communities were introduced into the Canada National Parks Act, the bunkhouse property owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway had been developed as a restaurant, and a description of the property was included in schedule 4. It was also expected that CPR's former railway station would be redeveloped as a commercial land use, and it too was included in schedule 4. Since then, the restaurant has ceased operations, and no commercial developments for the railway station have been proposed. CPR requires both properties for its operations and has requested a zoning change from commercial to railway and utilities.

Another site on the outskirts of Field, including property occupied by a gas station, had been zoned as institutional in anticipation of a museum that has never been built. The zoning would be changed to commercial to accommodate the gas station that currently exists on the site and serves the needs of both the community and its visitors.

The site of the former Royal Canadian Mounted Police office and barracks was originally zoned residential, with a notation in the original plan that it would be changed at a later date to commercial zoning to accommodate a bed and breakfast and a gift shop. As these developments have occurred, the change to commercial would reflect the current reality.

These zoning modifications are not controversial. They are supported by the community and they are well within the commercial growth limit already established in schedule 4. They would help support services required by park visitors and the town's businesses and residents. They are important to the economic viability of the community of Field and meet the intent of the community plan objectives. They would have no impact on the ecological integrity of Yoho National Park of Canada.

I would now like to turn to the amendments in clause 15 of the bill that would affect Jasper National Park of Canada. They involve the ski resort at Marmot Basin, which is located just 20 minutes from the town of Jasper within the boundaries of the park itself.

The ski hill has been in operation since 1961, and since then has provided exceptional skiing experiences to hundreds of thousands of visitors, including you, I believe, Mr. Speaker.

Before getting into the details of the amendments proposed by clause 15, which would bring positive benefits to both Jasper National Park and the ski hill operator, I wish to first describe the legislative and policy controls that Parks Canada has put in place with respect to ski hill development and the management of national parks in general. This will allow me to squarely address concerns raised previously in this House regarding the nature of the analysis brought to bear on the proposals relating to Marmot Basin ski area and on the opportunities for public input into these proposals.

The 1998 provisions were introduced in the Canada National Parks Act requiring that the boundary and size of each ski area be set out in schedule 5 of the act. Any change to those boundaries requires a legislative amendment. The bill is the vehicle for an amendment to the Marmot Basin ski area boundaries, as currently set out in schedule 5 of the act.

In addition to the legislative controls set out under the Canada National Parks Act, Parks Canada has, since 2000, established a series of policies that guide the management of ski areas in national parks. The Parks Canada ski area management guidelines outline a broad management approach for ski areas.

Parks Canada consulted with ski areas, communities, non-governmental organizations and tourism industry representatives in 2006 to get their feedback about potential refinements to the ski area management guidelines. Adjustments were made to the guidelines based on the feedback they received. These guidelines are supplemented by site-specific guidelines for each ski area to establish permanent growth limits and set out site-specific direction for development and use.

The final element of control is a requirement for ski areas to develop long-range plans and to carry out detailed impact analysis for project proposals that the ski area wishes to advance in a 5- to 15-year timeframe.

These policies provide a comprehensive and tightly controlled framework for the management of ski hill operations in national parks that provides long-term land use certainty for the ski hill area operators, for the Canadian public and for Parks Canada.

This framework respects the Parks Canada mandate of maintaining or restoring ecological integrity while fostering a connection to place through the memorable visitor experiences and educational opportunities. It also provides ski area operators with clear parameters for business planning in support of viable financial operations.

In the case of Marmot Basin ski area, its site guidelines for development and use were approved by Parks Canada in 2008. They outline what development and use may be considered in the future, and establish growth limits, ecological management parameters and approaches to ski area operation.

The site guidelines were prepared in collaboration with Marmot Basin, and included a comprehensive public participation program and completion of a strategic environmental assessment.

A long-range plan and its associated environmental assessment for the Marmot Basin ski area in Jasper National Park are under development currently. In fact, Marmot Basin has recently posted on its website notice of its intention to have public consultations on its long-range plans, starting this fall.

The process put in place by Parks Canada clearly requires that there be a thorough environmental analysis and that the public be engaged. In fact, the public has been consulted every step of the way, from the development of the agency ski area of management guidelines, with its input leading to modification of these guidelines in 2006, to the 2008 Marmot Basin site specific guidelines for development and use and, finally, now at the stage of the development of the ski area's long-range plan. There are plans for engaging the public this fall. This answers the concerns raised regarding proper analysis and the participation of Canadians who are concerned in the project review process.

One example of the detailed analysis is the collaboration between Parks Canada and Marmot Basin on two wildlife studies that will shed new light on habitat features and local movements by mountain goats and caribou. These studies will be used in the long-range planning process under the Marmot Basin site guidelines.

Information on the research findings will be publicly available and this information will contribute to future decision making by Parks Canada about the ski area and managing the adjacent wilderness in the area being considered for the amendments to schedule 5 of the Canada National Parks Act. No decisions will be made until these studies are completed.

The House heard concerns raised about the caribou found in Jasper National Park. In fact, one of the studies, referred to above, is a caribou risk assessment led by Dr. Fiona Schmiegelow at the University of Alberta. Parks Canada has also developed its own conservation strategy for southern mountain caribou in Canada's national parks.

Turning now to the situation which gave rise to the proposed amendments, the operator of the Marmot Basin ski area wishes to improve the ski experience in Marmot Basin to remain competitive with other new and expanded ski operations in the region and stay financially viable.

The growth limits and the site guidelines for the Marmot Basin ski area are based on a design capacity of 6,500 skiers per day. Currently, the ski hill frequentation averages a little over 4,000 skiers per day. The existing commercial space can serve less than 3,300 skiers. There is a need for additional facilities and services and room for them to be developed in a manner to achieve an exceptional skiing experience, while respecting conservation imperatives.

The ski area management guidelines will only allow ski areas to add new ski terrain through an exchange that results in a substantial environmental gain to the ecological integrity of the park, which brings us to the bill before us.

The operator for the Marmot Basin ski area has proposed a solution through a reduction of its leasehold boundary that will result in a substantial environmental gain, the ecological integrity of Jasper National Park. The Marmot Basin ski area has offered to remove from its lease and return to the park 118 hectares of ecologically-sensitive land in the Whistlers Creek valley. This is undeveloped terrain that is important habitat for many wildlife species, including woodland caribou, a threatened species under the Species At Risk Act, as well as for grizzly bears and mountain goats. In exchange, 60 hectares of land in a less ecologically-sensitive area will be made available to the ski area operator to develop beginner ski terrain and cross-country ski trails.

The land to be exchanged was carefully selected to avoid caribou habitat and other important wildlife habitats, including potential grizzly bear denning sites, none of which have been identified in the area. Before any development would be authorized, further environmental evaluation of the area would be conducted in the context of the long-range planning process the Marmot Basin has announced recently and to which I referred just a few minutes ago.

The proposed removal of the 188 hectares from the ski area leasehold is considered a substantial environmental gain for several reasons.

First, the reconfiguration of the lease represents an 18% reduction in the leasehold, which is a major reduction in size.

Second, the lease reduction establishes long-term certainty in approved protection for sensitive and important mountain caribou and goat habitat, including caribou food sources and a goat mineral lick.

Third, the area would be added to an existing declared wilderness area that would have a greater degree of protection than is currently the case. Uses would be carefully managed to protect the wilderness character of the area.

Next, the lease reduction is a positive contribution of Parks Canada's participation in current and future broad-scale ecosystem management initiatives to better protect caribou habitat. The lease reduction protects broad ecological values for multiple species associated with the Whistlers Creek valley, including habitat security for other valley and sensitive species, such as grizzly bear, wolverine and lynx.

This proposal fits squarely within the parameters of the Parks Canada policy regime for ski area management. The 2006 ski area management guidelines, Parks Canada's overarching policy document for ski area management, specifically allow for the potential to make modifications proposed where there is a substantial environmental gain. This applies in situations where there is a leasehold reduction or a reconfiguration that results in better protection of sensitive areas in exchange for development of less sensitive areas.

The bill would improve the protection of sensitive ecosystems in Jasper National Park while creating greater certainty in land use. It would maintain Park Canada's authority to carry out its mandate while giving the ski area operator the possibility to make business decisions with certainty and confidence.

As I have pointed out, the proposed changes to the Marmot Basin ski area leasehold set out in schedule 5 of the Canada National Parks Act give us a win-win situation. It would be a win for the ski hill operator who could take steps to enhance its competitive position by following the strict rules set out in the Parks Canada legislation and policy. Most of all, it would be a win for Jasper National Park of Canada, which would benefit from a reduction in the ski area leasehold boundary and be able to provide enhanced protection to habitat for a variety of wildlife, including the threatened caribou.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that part 2 of Bill S-15 would bring very positive benefits for Parks Canada and all Canadians. It would effect minor amendments to section 4 of the Canada National Parks Act that maintain the strength and purpose of the dedication clause while clarifying the administrative ability of the minister to set fees in national parks under related legislation. It would make minor but important amendments that would benefit the community of Field, a town site in Yoho National Park of Canada. It would provide for a substantial environmental gain for wildlife habitat in Jasper National Park of Canada.

Above all, this bill is evidence of this government's commitment to ensuring that Canada's national parks offer visitors inspiring experiences and meaningful opportunities to connect to these places while ensuring their protection for future generations. I urge all members on both sides of the House to support this bill going to committee and moving this initiative forward.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chair of my committee, the Standing Committee on Finance, for his speech. He is a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I hope the feeling is mutual. He can tell you if that is the case.

Naturally, I would like to thank him for his speech in which he described a whole range of measures. His speech covered a lot of things. Unfortunately, what he failed to mention were all the shortcomings or things that might be missing.

Of course, I spoke about Cartier-Brébeuf Park, which is located in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, an important place in our history. It is a key place for the entire country in terms of the French presence here in Canada. While I was listening to my colleague talk about winter sports, among other things, I could not help but think about the plight of Forillon Park, which has not lived up to its potential. Unfortunately, major cuts are being made to this park, which is a natural wonder and a cultural treasure.

I would like my colleague to explain how Forillon Park could benefit from the measures set out in the bill.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that I certainly share his level of respect across the aisle and appreciate all of his good work on the finance committee with all of the members there.

With respect to how this impacts a particular park, I would encourage the member to work with the Minister of the Environment and the minister responsible for Parks Canada with respect to heritage sites or parks.

I had the opportunity, as a Canadian of Irish heritage, to work with a former member of Parliament from the area responsible for Grosse-Îles as well as with the minister of the environment at the time, Mr. Jim Prentice, to increase the resources to that area and ensure that it had the services needed to show what is, in my view, an international treasure. It is a place where over 5,000 people of Irish descent came to Canada and, unfortunately, passed away, including many French Canadians who welcomed these people and cared for them. Many of them died in the process. It is a very moving site. It shows what Parks Canada can do when it combines a national historic site with a national park. It is just an amazing experience.

With respect to this bill, it actually deals with the Sable Island national park reserve. It deals with Yoho National Park and Jasper National Park. With respect to the specific park he raised, I encourage him to work directly with the Minister of the Environment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, most of Bill S-15 that concerns me relates to Sable Island.

I look at what is being proposed for Marmot Basin and recognize that a tremendous amount of work has been done. When it was first being proposed, there was a real paucity of scientific data and a real lack of understanding of what needed to be done to protect the caribou. These management plans have come a long way. They will take careful monitoring, because, as the hon. member knows, there is always a tension in our national parks system between the overriding goal, which is to maintain the ecological integrity of these parks, and the flip side of human enjoyment, which includes things such as ski hills and tourism.

Would my hon. friend agree with me that we must ensure that our national parks system is not eroded by allowing industrial activity to encroach on national parks? They have always maintained the highest level of protection, the gold standard, the highest International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN, qualifications, which really mandate that ecological integrity is job one. Would the hon. member agree?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the view of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in the sense that within our national parks, there is obviously a tension between any development that may occur to ensure that people have the opportunity to enjoy these parks and ensuring that the ecologically sensitive areas and the natural state people want to go there to enjoy is actually preserved.

In this case, with respect to Marmot Basin, the ski area has offered to remove from its lease and return to the park 118 hectares of ecologically sensitive land. In exchange, 60 hectares of land in a less ecologically sensitive area will be made available to that operator. I think this is, frankly, a very good solution going forward.

I go to Elk Island National Park on a regular basis, just outside the city of Edmonton. I love going there. I love hiking through the park, but I realize that every time I go there, I am, to some extent, as a human being, disturbing that natural area. We have to stick to the paths and recognize that we are in the beauty of a national park, but we have to very much recognize the human impact. It is very much a balance, and the government, in this case, has actually found that balance very well.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech tonight and his conjuring the idea of inspiring experiences, because that is what all of us remember. These are the kinds of things we are able to enjoy in our national parks in Canada.

I really appreciated, being an Albertan, his discussion of the Jasper National Park and how the bill meets the objectives of protecting the natural environment while providing enjoyment for Canadians with a national park experience. As a skier, I am also quite gratified to note, as will be thousands of other skiers, that there is an opportunity for Marmot Basin to continue to provide that skiing experience while protecting 118 hectares of ecologically sensitive land.

I would like to hear the member speak about how our government is working to ensure that parks are protected at the same time as people, humans, are encouraged to enjoy those inspiring experiences.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre for talking about her experiences at the Jasper National Park.

This is a park that I first visited when I was two years old. I used to go back every summer. I spent a lot of summers with my family there, hiking, and then obviously enjoying the ski hill there as well.

The member points to a theme, that the human enjoyment can be balanced with the protection of the environment. In this case, the exchange of the 118 hectares, which would be returned to ecologically sensitive land, with the 60 hectares, which could be used for development, would be a very good exchange for both, frankly, in terms of development and certainty for the ski hill operator and skiers who want to enjoy that area, and also for Parks Canada and people who want to preserve that wilderness going forward, for any of the species in the area. I mentioned the caribou. The exchange taking place is very sensitive to the caribou in the area.

I think it is a fantastic initiative. I applaud the Minister of the Environment for bringing this forward. I look forward to the bill passing at second reading and hopefully through committee so we can actually implement this legislation.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. We sat together on the finance committee.

I know he is a member from Alberta, and Alberta is known for its national parks. Normally we look at our national parks, and we can see that there is a temptation to maybe commercialize them.

In this respect, we have commercial activity, potential petroleum fields or oil that is underneath this national park. I am wondering if we are going to take these commercial activities and actually turn them into a national park? It seems like a similar type of endeavour, but it is actually not the same type of a conversion because of the dissimilarity.

Is the member willing to comment?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite. He is a former chair of the finance committee, and I certainly enjoyed serving with him on that committee.

With respect to Sable Island, that was a very active debate. I did not mention it specifically in my speech. However, with respect to the establishment of the park there, the companies have actually given up their leases for development. I know there will be an active debate at committee with respect to the seismic activity.

I think we should recognize the efforts of the minister in terms of establishing this park, this preserve, and actually getting industry to sort of move back from it, to step back from it. This is very similar to what is happening in the Jasper situation, where the ski area operator is actually removing himself from a sizeable area of land in exchange for development in a smaller area of land.

It is a very good exchange for both. I look forward to a good debate at committee with respect to any seismic activity that may occur near the Sable Island preserve.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak to Bill S-15, which would amend the Canada National Parks Act to create the Sable Island national park reserve of Canada, the conclusion of 50 years of work to protect Sable Island's distinctive nature.

The BBC describes Sable Island as being:

...for the Canadians what the Galapagos are for the people of Ecuador, or Easter Island for Chileans. It is important scientifically and historically, but more than this it is important culturally, as part of their identity...

Sable Island is world-renowned both for its biodiversity and its shipwrecks. It is home to tremendous biodiversity, including 375 wild horses, 350 species of birds, 190 plant species and the largest colony of grey seals in the world.

Since 1583, there have been more than 350 recorded shipwrecks on or near the island, earning it the title "Graveyard of the Atlantic".

Let me briefly describe the history of the creation of Sable Island national park reserve.

Given the exceptional ecosystems found on the island, the federal and Nova Scotia governments concluded in 2004:

...that it would be in the public interest to use a federal protected area designation to achieve conservation objectives for Sable Island.

Eventually the consultations recommended that Sable Island be designated a national park, and on October 17, 2011, the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia signed a memorandum of understanding to establish a national park on Sable Island.

The island would be designated as a national park reserve in recognition of the fact that it is subject to the claim of the Mi'kmaq. The Mi'kmaq and the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia are currently negotiating this claim. The designation as a national park reserve allows the governments to continue these land claim negotiations.

Conserving Sable Island poses a challenge owing to the wealth of resources in and around the island and the legislative framework under which the reserve was developed, which was that there can be no adverse impacts on petroleum activities.

Parks Canada has explained to me that this is the first time a reserve has ever been created in an area of oil and gas activities. Over the last 50 years, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board has made 23 significant discovery declarations in offshore Nova Scotia.

Bill S-15 would put into law an existing prohibition against drilling on Sable Island. Importantly, five oil companies that have been granted exploration licenses for on-island drilling have voluntarily agreed to relinquish these rights.

The Liberal Party strongly supports the establishment of Sable Island national park reserve. However, we would like this legislation to proceed to committee for a thorough review to ensure that this national treasure is properly protected. We want to ensure that rigorous environmental protections and safeguards are maintained for this national park reserve, for all our national parks and for future parks. As well, we must ensure that any concerns by the Mi'kmaq with regard to the legislation have the opportunity to be addressed.

One concern is with regard to the extent and oversight of natural resource development that Bill S-15 would authorize. These include petroleum exploration activities, which might include seismic, geological or geophysical programs on Sable Island. Additionally, what other activities might fall under the term “low impact” petroleum exploration? What does the government define as “low impact”?

At a departmental briefing, officials explained to me that "There are no exact details, no discussion of when low impact becomes high impact". In fact, when I asked about the availability of studies looking at possible impacts, I was told Parks Canada had only one.

Moreover, the official repeatedly used the words “as presented to us” to describe the evidence they did have, which is evidence from only industry. The lack of definition requires further clarification.

Parks Canada explained that if it was developing a marine protected area the department might have taken a different approach. Should a reserve have less protection? This is an issue that should be examined at committee. Low-impact activities must be defined for parliamentarians when this is reviewed at committee.

The Liberal Party is in favour of responsible and sustainable resource development. However, we believe that development projects must adhere to the most stringent environmental assessments. We must ensure that Sable Island is environmentally protected and that the ecosystems are not detrimentally affected. We understand the economic value that developing the oil and gas resources in and around Sable Island would provide Nova Scotia and that it is legislatively protected. However, Sable Island is a particularly sensitive ecosystem.

We would like a review of Clause 3 and an exception to the application of the Canada National Parks Act with regard to existing leases, easements and licences of occupation and work on Sable Island.

Regarding clause 7, what would be the new mechanism for coordination and co-operation between Parks Canada and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board? This is key, as in the amendments to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act it states, “before deciding whether to issue the authorization, the Board shall consider any advice”. In other words, the offshore board is not bound by the recommendations of Parks Canada. Who is looking after the interests of the environment and Sable Island if the offshore board is not bound by the decision? I understand from Parks Canada that the MOU defining the rules of this relationship would be put in place after the park is established. The act contains changes to land borders in Jasper National Park. Would the exchange of land between Parks Canada and the operators of Marmot Basin have a detrimental impact on the species in the area?

Regarding clause 15, with respect to Jasper National Park, with the exchange of land and the new development, are there any areas of concern with regard to the environment and species at risk in this new area that would be developed?

Last week I had a conference call with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, which focuses on protecting many important areas of Canada's wilderness. The call was to find out whether it was indeed comfortable with the fast-tracking of this bill and the fact that even if the bill went to committee, amendments may not be accepted. I was informed that it wants Sable Island protected and that this bill is an important first step.

I ask that the government not use this bill as a precedent to allow exploration in other national parks. I am assured by officials that future parks are legislatively protected from this. Having said that, I have asked the parliamentary secretary and the minister and have still not been given that assurance on the record tonight. I would like the government's word that the integrity of Canada's national parks would not be undermined but instead protected, and that creating a national park among oil and gas exploration is not a foot in the door, an opening or setting a precedent to allow development in our treasured national parks.

I look forward to these issues being addressed at committee.

In closing, I would like to say that the government says it is a conservation government, but its actions paint a different picture.

Both with proposed national parks and protected areas such as the Rouge, as well as Sable Island, there are concerns regarding ecological integrity of the parks that cannot be overlooked, yet government members continually brush aside.

Moreover, I am concerned about the government's environmental track record that we have seen play out again and again over the past year, whether it be through Bill C-38 that gutted environmental legislation, that repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, that repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, or Bill C-45 that dramatically reduced environmental protection of our waterways.

These are not the actions of a conservationist government. These are not the actions of a government that seeks to protect our national habitat.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting to hear the Liberals talk about the environment, especially given their track record of inconsistencies.

However, I notice the member is passionate about the environment and I respect that very much.

We heard earlier that the NDP members wanted to have parks so nobody could see them, enjoy them or step foot on them.

Does the member not see the opportunities for Canadians to share with the world the great ecological steps that we have taken to protect huge swaths of land in our country and does she not see there can be a true balance in the best interests of Canadians and wildlife and the general economic and ecological environment of the country?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we always want a balance. We want Canadians to experience our wonderful heritage. However, we also have to protect the environment.

In terms of protecting, we were to have 10% protected. In terms of marine protected areas, we have 1%. I would like to stress that Australia has 33%.

I would like to raise something that has not been raised tonight regarding the Mi'kmaq. Gerard Julian the co-chair and chief of a first nation group. He said that his people were not consulted on the legislation, as required by the Constitution, and were concerned that the government would fail to adequately study the historic Mi'kmaq presence on the island. He said that Parks Canada should fund the Mi'kmaq to do this archeological work, which previously was impossible because of visitation restrictions.

He told a Senate committee studying Bill S-15:

Our nation's desire and perspective is grounded in concepts that have been passed down from generation to generation, concepts of respect, integrity and environmental safeguards.

He questioned:

How can any government department make decisions on the lands and waters of our traditional territories without including the Mi'kmaq in these conversations?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being midnight, pursuant to order made Wednesday, May 22, 2013, this House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of the motion that Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill S-15. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of this bill.

Sable Island is one of Canada's great natural treasures, a windswept remote island renowned for its wild horses and its historical role as the site of the nation's first life-saving station.

It is a place of astounding beauty, with sand dunes, marram grass and freshwater ponds. Anyone fortunate enough to visit this unique environment is captivated by its diversity of plants, birds and animal life. The island is home to several endangered species.

This rare and remarkable place also has a rich cultural history. Sable Island holds a special place in the hearts and minds of Nova Scotians and Canadians. It has inspired artists and writers locally, across the country and internationally.

An island of such spectacular beauty, rare flora and fauna and cultural heritage is wholly deserving of our protection. That is why on October 17, 2011, the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia signed a memorandum of agreement to establish and manage Sable Island as a national park reserve of Canada.

Our objective is to protect Sable Island for all time for the benefit, education and enjoyment of the people of Canada. As the House is aware, the designation of Sable Island as a national park reserve of Canada takes into consideration the Mi'kmaq asserted rights and title in Nova Scotia. These are being addressed through the made-in-Nova Scotia process between the governments of Canada, Nova Scotia and the Mi'kmaq.

Moreover, the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia have agreed that Parliament will enact legislation amending the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to prohibit drilling for petroleum in Sable Island national park reserve of Canada and to limit the range of surface access rights in respect to the petroleum work or activity in the park reserve.

We have done the essential preparatory work, and I would like to highlight the many reasons why Parks Canada is uniquely situated to oversee the protection of Sable Island.

The Parks Canada network now includes 44 national parks, 167 national historic sites and 4 national marine conservation areas. Since 1911, this agency has worked hard to ensure that Canada's historic and natural heritage is protected and that Canadians and people around the world can engage in inspiring discoveries of our treasured and natural historic places.

Let me give an overview of how we have expanded Parks Canada's protected areas network in recent years. In 2006, that network was 277,400 square kilometres in size. Since then, the Government of Canada has taken actions that would protect an additional 149,639 square kilometres. This would bring Parks Canada's network to more than 427,000 square kilometres, or a 54% increase.

What these numbers demonstrate is how completely Parks Canada is committed to taking care of our natural treasures and to acting as their ever-vigilant stewards. The early visionaries of our parks system recognized that connecting with the natural world can be a deeply meaningful and moving experience, and a fundamental part of that mission was a way to foster these connections. This is a principle to which Parks Canada remains dedicated.

Allow me to give some highlights of Parks Canada's achievements over the past few years, all of which provide ample evidence of this agency's fitness for the stewardship role with regard to Sable Island. Let me start with some recent top achievements, several of them marking firsts, not just in Canada but in the world.

In 2007, the Prime Minister announced the creation of the largest freshwater marine protected area in the world, Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area. This addition to our system comprises more than 10,000 square kilometres, including the lake bed, islands and north shore lands.

In 2009, we expanded the boundary of the Nahanni National Park Reserve sixfold to over 30,000 square kilometres. There is absolutely no doubt that this landmark conservation achievement is quite significant. In fact it is the greatest accomplishment for Parks Canada in a generation. I am delighted to note that it was done in close collaboration with the Dehcho First Nations.

Another outstanding accomplishment in 2009 was the establishment of the Saoyú-§ehdacho National Historic Site in the Northwest Territories. This marks the first of three firsts in Canada. This national historic site was the first northern cultural landscape commemorated by the Government of Canada; the first northern national historic site co-operatively managed by Parks Canada and an aboriginal group; and also the first protected area established under the Northwest Territories protected areas strategy. This historic site comprises two peninsulas bordering the Great Bear Lake. It is an area of 5,565 square kilometres, which is approximately the size of Prince Edward Island. This site protects a cultural landscape of great importance to the Sahtu people of the Great Bear Lake. The elders' vision for the site is one of continued teaching and healing, a place that forever helps to sustain the culture and well-being of the people.

In 2010, the Government of Canada formally established the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve and Haida Heritage Site, which some people call “the Canadian Galapagos”. This achievement was a result of historic and outstanding collaborative partnership between the Government of Canada and the Haida Nation. What is extraordinary about this unique protective measure is the combination of the existing park reserve with a new marine conservation area. In total, over 5,000 square kilometres are now protected: a spectacular wilderness that extends from alpine mountaintops to the deep sea beyond the continental shelf. The scope of this achievement is a first not only for Canada but also for North America and the world.

In 2011, Parks Canada oversaw the successful reintroduction of the plains bison and the black-footed ferret, an animal once thought to be extinct for most of the 20th century, in the Grasslands National Park. This measure was part of the $75-million investment to improve the ecological integrity of national parks and national park reserves across Canada.

It was also in 2011 that the Government of Canada announced it would create Canada's first national urban park in Toronto. The concept of a national urban park is an entirely new and unique one to Parks Canada and, indeed, to Canada. Once established, Rouge national urban park will provide an unparalleled opportunity to reach the 20% of Canadians who live within the vicinity of the park and in Canada's most culturally diverse city. Since the 2011 announcement of the Rouge national park, Parks Canada has made steady progress toward establishing this unique protected area in the heart of Canada's most populated area. The agency has worked with first nations and more than 100 communities and organizations including youth. I note that my riding in the city of Barrie is very close to this Rouge national park, and I know that across southern Ontario the commitment to it has been supported and appreciated.

I also remind members of the House about four successful multi-partnership expeditions that Parks Canada has led in Canada's Arctic, in search of the lost vessels of Sir John Franklin. This work has helped narrow our search, with the great added advantages of further asserting Canadian sovereignty and deepening our scientific knowledge in the Arctic. The work to protect our natural heritage is ceaseless, and it takes in all parts of our vast nation.

In May 2012, for example, the governments of Canada and Quebec announcement the creation of an advisory committee for the feasibility assessment of a marine protected area in Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

In August 2012, the Prime Minister announced the establishment and boundaries of Canada's 44th national park, the Nááts'ihch'oh National Park Reserve in the Northwest Territories. This new national park reserve will serve as a launching area for visitors to its northern wilderness, with its breathtaking landscapes of the upper reaches of the world-famous South Nahanni River. Together, the Nahanni and the Nááts'ihch'oh national park reserves protect habitat for mountain woodland caribou, grizzly bears, Dall sheep, mountain goats and trumpeter swans, while at the same time supporting the economic aspirations of first nations and the tourism industries of the region.

I need hardly tell members that the Parks Canada role in the protection of our diverse precious natural areas and species is one of which all Canadians can justly be proud. In its dedicated work as a steward, Parks Canada is an example to the world. In fact, its reach and influence extend globally, and it has received international recognition for its achievements.

For example, in May 2011, the World Wildlife Fund International recognized Parks Canada with its prestigious Gift to the Earth award. The award noted Parks Canada's outstanding conservation achievements, including the recent dramatic growth of Canada's system of national parks and national marine conservation areas.

In September 2012, Parks Canada led the development of the publication titled “North American Protected Areas as Natural Solutions to Climate Change”, released at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature World Conservation Congress in South Korea. This publication is a collaborative effort of the North American Intergovernmental Committee on Wilderness and Protected Area Conservation with the government representation from Canada, the United States and Mexico.

I would like to turn now to some of Parks Canada's achievements in the realm of historic and cultural commemoration. As I noted earlier, these are important aspects in the protection of Sable Island.

In fact, in 2012, Parks Canada received such a historic designation itself. That year, the Government of Canada honoured the agency as the world's first national parks service by commemorating the Creation of the Dominion Parks Branch and the birth of Parks Canada as an event of national historic significance.

Parks Canada's other commemorative highlights last year included the opening of the new visitor centre at Fort Wellington National Historic Site as part of the special War of 1812 commemoration. The Calgary Stampede, billed as the greatest outdoor show on Earth, was also recognized as an event of national historic significance as was the Grey Cup.

In August last year, our environment minister designated Canada's heritage lighthouses under the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, which included the St. Paul Island Southwest Lighthouse in Dingwall, Nova Scotia and McNab Point and the Saugeen River Front and Rear Range lights in Southampton, Ontario.

On the 100th anniversary of the sinking of RMS Titanic, the government honoured the historic efforts of Canadians in the recovery of victims of the disaster.

Earlier, I mentioned Parks Canada's involvement in searching for the ships of the Franklin expedition. In July 2010, the agency embarked upon its 10 day archeological survey of Aulavik National Park to locate HMS Investigator wreck and document and map the land sites associated with Captain Robert McClure's expedition to find the Northwest Passage. This initiative produced a number of findings, including the shipwreck of HMS Investigator, three gravesites and new information on the equipment and provision cache site.

I said that Parks Canada's commitment to protecting our natural and cultural heritage is unceasing. So, too, are the agency's efforts to help connect Canadians with nature.

The early visionaries of our parks system recognized that when people connected with the natural world they could have an experience that was deeply meaningful and moving. A fundamental part of Parks Canada's mission is therefore to foster these connections.

Today, that mission is more urgent than ever before. As many members of the House know, North Americans are becoming more and more disconnected with nature. Tackling the disconnection and fostering Canadians' close relation with the natural world is therefore a task for Parks Canada, and it takes it very seriously.

It is typical of the agency's dedication to this vision that it used its own anniversary to further this crucial work. In its anniversary year of 2011, Parks Canada introduced a series of ongoing programs to reach Canadians and youth in particular.

Among these were the innovative and highly popular learn to camp initiative, overnight camping events aimed at introducing city dwellers, many of them young families or recent immigrants, to camping and other fun outdoor activities.

Through its my parks pass program, the agency provided every grade 8 student across the country with passes to enter all of Parks Canada's sites free of charge for 12 months.

Parks Canada also introduced a promotion called “Canada's coolest school trip” in which a grade 8 class could win a school trip to visit a national park or historic site.

Using multimedia, the agency's national parks project brought together 52 of Canada's best musicians and filmmakers to create music and film inspired by Canada's most breathtaking national parks. These films are available online. The soundtrack album is in stores and on iTunes and a documentary TV series is running on Discovery World.

Also on television, Parks Canada premiered Operation Unplugged, a reality show in which eight urban young people traded their techno-dependent lifestyles for a summer unplugged in the national parks.

In all these ways, Parks Canada's centennial celebrations help the agency meet its target for public engagement so Canadians' awareness of Parks Canada and support for its work are growing across the country. Parks Canada reports the visitation to national parks is now slowly increasing, helping to reverse a downward trend seen over many years.

In my overview, I have touched on many areas of Parks Canada's achievements, all of which demonstrate the agency's long history, experience and passion for protecting our natural and cultural heritage. I noted its international recognition and that it was the first national parks agency in the world. I am fully confident that this superbly well-qualified federal agency will make an ideal steward for the wondrous beauty and unique character of Sable Island. I am therefore urging all members in the House to support the bill, which would make this exquisite island one of the jewels in our national parks system with Parks Canada as its able steward.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleague's message loud and clear. I understand his good will and his desire to help Canadians connect with nature. However, since the Conservatives made significant cuts to Parks Canada, they have also cut its activities, environmental assessments and the protection of navigable waters. Furthermore, some Canadians now have to volunteer their services in order to take care of Parks Canada.

We will support this bill because it is important. However, I would like to know what the member has to say about this. If we add a 44th park, what will happen and who will look after it? Will the government allocate funds specifically to protect the environment? Will the government reverse the cuts it made to Parks Canada? I would like the member to answer those questions.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, since 2006, this government has put significant investments into Parks Canada. More significant, we need to look at the overall numbers. One could say that in this year or that year there was small cut or a large increase, but the bottom line is if we look at an overview of Parks Canada, the protected areas in 2006 went from 277,000 square kilometres in size to an astounding 427,000 square kilometres today, a 54% increase to Parks Canada. That is an accomplishment for the Government of Canada. It shows the commitment of the Conservatives to Parks Canada, which is quite astounding.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as we have debated this bill in the House over the last few sessions, I have been pleased to see a lot of support for getting the bill to a parliamentary committee for review.

There is one colleague in the House who has spoken out against the bill, and that is the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. She has incorrectly stated that the bill would change the scope and functionality of the Canada National Parks Act, when instead, it would create a reserve for Sable Island, which prevents hydrocarbon drilling on the surface of the island and a buffer zone around it. That would provide significantly increase protection for the ecosystem of this area. It has been developed in partnership with the Nova Scotia government and industry.

Could my colleague speak to the importance of supporting the bill's passage through to committee and perhaps some of the inaccurate comments that the colleague has made?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me note that it is great to have such an advocate in the member for Calgary Centre-North. Her commitment at the environment committee and to Parks Canada is simply incredible.

She is absolutely correct that it is a mistake for the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to try to block or build support against investing in Parks Canada and against creating national parks. It does an incredible amount of good. When it comes to ecological protection, I think this is something all Canadians value to ensure the partnership created with first nations and with the Government of Nova Scotia is honoured at the multi-level agreement. We should honour that ecological protection. I am so proud to be part of a government that is so committed to doing so.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague appears to understand the importance of national parks. It is also clear, however, that his comments are simply for appearances, considering the cuts imposed on Parks Canada, as my colleague mentioned earlier.

Furthermore, Canada is not even coming close to meeting its commitments regarding the conservation targets set out in the United Nations convention.

Can my colleague tell us when his government will put an end to the piecemeal approach it has adopted so far when it comes to the environment as a whole?

Of course, the NDP supports and will vote in favour of a comprehensive approach on environmental issues.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government has shown a tremendous commitment to the environment. Rather than just talk about it, like the NDP likes to, the Conservative government has taken tangible action. In my own home area in Simcoe county, for the first time in history, the Government of Canada, rather than leaving it to local authorities to invest in, invested in the cleanup of Lake Simcoe, with a $30-million initial grant and a subsequent $29-million grant. Phosphorous levels are now at an all-time modern low. It is not just Lake Simcoe, it is Lake Winnipeg and across the country that there has been a commitment to cleaning up the environment in a very real and meaningful manner.

In terms of the international forums the member mentioned, I would note that we are being honoured in Canada for Canada's unique and zealous commitment to the environment. A good example is in 2001 the World Wildlife Fund recognized Parks Canada with its prestigious Gift to the Earth award to recognize Canadian efforts. Additionally, we were recognized at the World Conservation Congress in South Korea in 2012.

This is certainly a government with a track record of success and accomplishments in the environment. I know my home community in Barrie, Ontario, tremendously appreciates the cleanup that has happened on the shores of Kempenfelt Bay.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is certainly worth our attention and should be looked at it in committee. I look forward to debating it in committee, if it passes at second reading, and I will support it. However, I have some serious reservations.

The commitment of the government toward the parks system in our country has been transparently lacking. Cutting $59 million last year is a case in point. We are not sure where the government is trying to take us, but the creation of a new park may be a step in the right direction. Perhaps putting the $59 million back into the system would be another step in the right direction.

In the interim, let us talk about what is being done at Sable Island. There is talk about creating a buffer zone. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that. The member spoke about the Magdalen Islands and the protections to be created there. Protections consist of, for instance, marine-protected areas around parks, as is planned to be done in the Magdalen Islands. The question is what kind of protection that is. It is still completely undefined for the Magdalen Islands and remains undefined, even though we have talked about for years. I would like the government to come clean on what its definition of marine-protected areas really is.

Let us talk about Sable Island. If there is going to be a buffer zone around the island, we are talking about low-impact seismic testing. We know seismic testing can blow the eardrums right out of whales that are crossing through those areas during seismic testing.

Could the member please explain to me the meaning of low-impact seismic testing? What protections are going to be put in place for marine mammals and how is the government going to ensure that seismic testing is, in fact, going to be low impact that it is not going to affect marine mammals as they cross through the area of this new park?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the member's support for this bill is appreciated. Sending this to committee is an important step in the process, so that is encouraging to hear. I understand that the member will have a role in suggesting witnesses so that we can see some of the structure associated with the conservation process and hear appropriate guidelines and suggestions.

There is already an ongoing dialogue between the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada. I know that the member for Calgary Centre-North has spoken in the House of Commons in great detail to some of the elements of conservation and what they would entail. The member may want to take a look at that in Hansard.

Overall, this is a fundamental commitment to the province of Nova Scotia and to Canadians that we value our natural heritage sites. If we look at the big picture, it is about supporting ongoing efforts to expand our national parks system. Since 2006, we have seen not only a net increase in the budget for Parks Canada but an astounding 54% increase in the number of square kilometres associated with Parks Canada.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House in support of Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act, at second reading.

I should first note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Lambert.

Among other things, Bill S-15 proposes to make Sable Island, a small island 175 km off the south-east coast of Nova Scotia, Canada’s 43rd national park.

It is a very interesting bill that has support from regional and national environmental groups. It is the result of negotiations between the federal government and the provincial NDP government. Clearly, with support from the community and from government, we already have an opportunity to take the longer view, and perhaps support it.

A few months ago, on one of those rare evenings of rest I was able to get, I happened upon an article about Sable Island. I was truly fascinated by what I was able to learn, particularly about the unique ecosystem of this thin sand dune off the coast of Nova Scotia. I found the island absolutely magnificent. It is a most impressive place, with over 300 unique species of birds, insects and butterflies, and a herd of the wild horses that are the cause of its fame.

The flora of Sable Island are just as varied, and include a number of plants rarely found elsewhere on our planet. Uninhabited, except for a handful of researchers, this island continues to stir the imagination of Canadians today, and must be protected, both because of its unique and important ecosystem, and its historical value. The island is very fragile, and exposed to the winds of the Atlantic Ocean. In an intensified way, it is subject to the weather conditions of the environment in which it is located.

In designating Sable Island as a national park, this government has the responsibility of granting it the enhanced environmental protection measures that should accompany its designation as a national park.

Although Bill S-15 seems to be an initial step in the right direction, there are still a number of concerns about its wording.

First, the bill prohibits drilling within one nautical mile of the island, or on its surface, but still allows drilling underneath it. This is a first for a national park in Canada, but it is not one to be proud of. In my view, a very dangerous precedent is being created for future national parks that may be created over the years in Canada. I would not like to see similar rights granted to some companies that own drilling rights, such as ExxonMobil, which still has the right to drill close to Sable Island. I believe such an opening is very dangerous, and it should be studied in detail in committee.

The current wording of Bill S-15 also allows various types of low-impact exploration on the surface of the Island, but without a clear definition of what that expression means. I have problems with this, because it is difficult to imagine all the different kinds of exploration that might be carried out on Sable Island, which is already very fragile.

My colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine has raised some concerns about the effects of some kinds of exploration, which are considered to be low-impact but which can have very harmful effects on marine mammals in the vicinity of such tests.

For these reasons, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has a lot of work to do before we can fully support the bill as currently drafted. It has some fairly serious shortcomings, and we must ensure that the text that emerges from the committee's proceedings guarantees genuine protection for Sable Island's invaluable habitats and ecosystems.

Parks Canada's mandate is to protect the natural and cultural heritage of our national parks. The final text of Bill S-15 must truly reflect that mandate and implement practical measures to ensure that it is carried out.

I come from the riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, where nature is a very important part of people's everyday lives and environmental protection issues are among their greatest concerns. They regularly enjoy the outdoors, hunting and fishing, but they also want to protect our natural resources.

Last Saturday, I attended the Saint-Basile-de-Portneuf fishing festival, during which I even had a chance to go and stock the river with trout.

This is one of the many actions the municipality takes every year to ensure that fishers retain their access to the river, which is very close to the village, and are able to continue fishing without depleting all the fish stocks in the river. These efforts show how important nature is to the people of my riding.

Although there is no federal national park in my riding, there is a provincial park, the Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier. There is also the Portneuf wildlife reserve, which I highly recommend to everyone as a summer vacation destination. People will not be disappointed by it.

The Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier is less than 30 minutes north of Quebec City. The Government of Quebec created the 670-km² park in 1981 to protect a representative sample of the natural region of the Laurentian mountains. Some of you may have had the opportunity to travel across part of the park if you have ever driven from Quebec City to Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean or other neighbouring areas. That route features a very good sample of the region's natural assets. In addition to a spectacular glacier valley, the park is also crossed by a salmon river, the Rivière à saumon, and is home to rich and diversified plant and animal life.

The Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier is also home to an isolated herd of nearly 75 woodland caribou, a cervid species considered vulnerable and found in very small numbers in the province of Quebec. I saw one on one of my many trips across the Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier, between Quebec City and Jonquière, where I lived for a number of years. Protection for the caribou's environment, part of which is located in the Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier, is essential to the species' survival.

The 775-km² Portneuf wildlife reserve is located approximately 40 km north of Saint-Raymond, halfway between Quebec City and Trois-Rivières. It is another large nature preserve in my riding. Some of you may perhaps already be familiar with the region, which is well known to hunting and fishing enthusiasts who come to the service cooperative in Rivière-à-Pierre to stock up on provisions before heading off to take advantage of this wildlife reserve's magnificent hills and valleys, as well as its countless lakes and rivers.

Plans are already underway in my riding to create a protected area in the Portneuf wildlife reserve, and work to protect the ecosystems in this part of the area is ongoing. With such a wealth of natural resources in my own riding, it is difficult for me not to take an interest in other natural resources in Canada, including those of Sable Island, which is the subject of the bill before us today.

Unfortunately, I do not feel reassured when I look at the Conservatives’ track record on the environment, particularly when the bill would leave open the possibility of drilling underneath Sable Island. An environment as fragile as this already needs our protection, and preserving its ecosystem means that the number of people visiting it should be kept down. This bill, however, leaves open the possibility of drilling underneath the island. This, to me, is inconceivable, particularly given the Conservatives' track record.

In 2012 alone, the Conservatives eliminated important environmental protection measures, including 99% of federal environmental assessments and 98% of protective measures for Canada's navigable waterways. They eliminated the protection regime for most fish habitats. They also slashed $29 million from the Parks Canada budget and eliminated over 6,000 jobs, all of which clearly demonstrates that Canada's national parks are anything but a priority for this government.

The Conservatives are proposing the establishment of Canada's 43rd national park, but are not providing Parks Canada with everything it needs to fulfill its mandate to protect and preserve our natural heritage. That is what worries me.

I am therefore supporting the bill at second reading so that it can be referred to committee for the in-depth study that is necessary. I hope that what comes back to us in the House is a version that truly protects Sable Island, an outcome that is absolutely essential.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite pleased to hear the level of detail and content in my colleague's speech.

In previous debate, we have talked about the fact that this bill would not amend the Canada National Parks Act in order to permit low-impact petroleum activities; rather, it would amend the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to restrict the board's current powers to authorize various forms of hydrocarbon exploration in and around the area. This is a very positive environmental gain for Sable Island.

Unfortunately, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has tried to confuse this issue, quite seriously, in the media. How does my colleague opposite feel about this, given that the NDP government in Nova Scotia has been one of the most active proponents of this legislation; has passed a very similar bill in its legislature; and has been working in a very positive way with industry, first nations groups and various other stakeholder groups in order to get this real ecological gain for the area?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.

The NDP government in Nova Scotia is doing what I would like to see the federal government do. It is taking the time to consult those who will be affected by the bill; it is taking the time to discuss the matter with all segments of society, from first nations to industry. That openness is important. It is important to hear all the points of view and have a conversation in order to come to the best possible agreement. That is worth applauding. The NDP government in Nova Scotia took steps to get to where we are concerning Sable Island.

What saddens and worries me is that there is still the possibility of exploring for oil under Sable Island. Similar measures could be put in place for other new parks. Currently, certain oil companies are retaining their right to drill under the island. They can set up 1.1 or 1.2 nautical miles away from the island and drill horizontally under the island.

I see some of the members opposite gesturing as if to say that that is not the case. However, ExxonMobil is one such company that is retaining its right to drill under Sable Island. This is a first for a national park. I am worried about the precedent it will set.

I hope that we can really have that discussion in committee because, generally speaking, the Conservatives hold the majority in committee, and they cut short most of the discussions that are not to their liking.

I hope that, this time, they will take the time to listen to all of the witnesses and really take an in-depth look at this issue.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly must be unusual in the House to have the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment twice attack the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, myself, by name. I wonder if my hon. colleagues are as surprised as I am.

I have said very clearly that I want to see the creation of Sable Island's national park, but that we must not allow the integrity of the national park system to be sacrificed. It is very clear that this legislation would allow the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board the rights to regulate activities inside a national park. It would be obligated to only consult Parks Canada about the decisions it makes. It would not even need to get a sign-off from Parks Canada before it undertakes activities.

This is a significant threat to the integrity of the entire national parks system. I ask my friend to expand on her comments regarding her concern that this sets a dangerous precedent.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

What she describes is strangely reminiscent for me of the situation currently prevailing with regard to aviation. Developers can in fact set up anywhere, without having to ask permission from Transport Canada to do anything. They merely have to notify it of what they are doing. Here we have a similar scheme. I find this deplorable and rather disturbing.

I said just now that people seemed to be saying there would be no exploration or drilling on Sable Island. However, the subsoil of Sable Island is not part of the national park. It would be excluded.

I do not entirely understand the reasoning of this government, which asserts that it will not allow any exploration on Sable Island, even though the subsoil nevertheless remains accessible to some companies. Are we going to find similar measures in future laws establishing national parks? I hope not.

I hope that the necessary provisions to avoid such a situation will be included in Bill S-15.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on Bill S-15.

I first want to stress the fact that despite the importance of the debate and the exchanges on the subject, the Conservative government has again imposed a limit on debate. Consequently, there is once again an undemocratic short-circuiting of the customary parliamentary process.

That said, as stated, Bill S-15 amends the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and makes consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001.

In more concrete terms, this initiative from the Senate would designate Sable Island as Canada’s 43rd national park. Quite obviously, we are delighted at the move to protect this unique place, which has stirred our imaginations with its beauty, its history and the ecological heritage it represents.

The bill includes a number of measures. First, drilling less than one nautical mile from the island, or on the surface of the island, would be strictly prohibited. This would make it possible to protect the visible areas from any petroleum development. Of course, this would be an important step in preserving the integrity of the area and the ecosystem that is part of it.

On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that exploration activities would be tolerated, provided they had little impact on the ecosystem of the island. Moreover, this partial prohibition would not include seismic testing, which can have an environmental impact on the area.

In that connection, we note that unfortunately, the concept of impact is not formally defined in the bill. This will be one of the factors to be explored in committee. However, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board should consult Parks Canada on the conduct of such exploration activities. This is important, because it would ensure collegial management of the space occupied by Sable Island and maximize its protection.

In the same vein, while surface drilling will be prohibited, underground drilling would be allowed. This would clearly constitute a first for a national park. Consequently, we shall have to know exactly how this significant aspect of the bill will be overseen. While the technology is not fully developed in this area, the fact remains that we will be confronting that aspect sooner or later.

Another element found in Bill S-15 is the installation of landing platforms for helicopters used to evacuate offshore workers. We applaud this inclusion, as we value the safety and security of all our people. The spirit that guides these measures takes us one step in the right direction in order to protect that jewel, Sable Island.

Let us remember that this ecosystem harbours many unusual species of flora and fauna, some of them unique to Sable Island. They include the 250 wild horses, the seals that reproduce there and the many bird colonies.

In 1977 the government had already recognized the ecological importance of Sable Island and designated it a migratory bird sanctuary. As a result, the unique ecological heritage of this area is well known and our duty as parliamentarians is to work to protect it.

Naturally, like many environmentalists, the NDP agrees with the principles expressed in Bill S-15. We are in favour of protecting Sable Island in all its facets and establishing boundaries for the human activities that take place there.

Certainly, there are several aspects of this legislation that should be studied in committee. It will be essential to consider the concepts of exploration and impact we find in the bill. What will be considered a low impact? How much petroleum exploration activity will we allow on the island? What will the relationship be between the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and Parks Canada? What will we do if a petroleum deposit is discovered beneath Sable Island?

It will also be important to consider the possibility of exploration using seismic testing. These are questions that must be asked by the parliamentarians who are members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

In short, the work done in the committee will determine the future success and survival of this national park. Moreover, we believe that we must be in constant contact with the various stakeholders involved in the current legislative process. They include the Nova Scotia provincial government, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Ecology Action Centre, the Green Horse Society and the Friends of Sable Island Society.

This is a serious matter. We must ensure that all stakeholders work together with parliamentarians to complete this project and set up a national park that will meet ecological and environmental objectives.

That said, the Conservatives are trying to present Bill S-15 as environmental good news. It was true, although certain reservations have been expressed about the creation of this national park. However, that does not diminish the fact that ever since it came to power the government has done all it could to eliminate, weaken and stall environmental measures.

The fact that Canada withdrew from Kyoto clearly showed that the Conservatives had abdicated their environmental responsibilities. Then they cut back considerably on environmental assessments, which must be done for companies' projects and routine activities. This is clearly having a significant impact on various practices, and it will have serious effects on our ecosystem. What is worse, the Conservatives deny that there is a problem with the environment or that climate change exists, which seriously taints the creation of Sable Island national park.

The NDP, on the other hand, has done everything it can to promote environmental values. We remain the only credible political party the public can trust to protect ecosystems and ensure that sustainable development is at the heart of everything we do.

That will be the basis for our work on Bill S-15. We will support the bill at second reading, so that it can be sent to committee. However, we will do everything we can to limit potential and foreseeable environmental abuses. We will be listening to stakeholders and will do what we can to develop the best bill possible for the creation of Sable Island national park.

I am now prepared to take questions from my colleagues.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the great speech by my colleague and the fact that on all sides of the House we are interested in preserving our environment for current and future generations of Canadians.

One comment my colleague made, however, did cause me some concern. She drew attention to the fact that we withdrew from the Kyoto accord. Is she aware that during the time of the Kyoto accord that the Liberal government had signed on to, our emissions actually rose by 30%? Under our government, between 2005 and 2010, our greenhouse gas emissions have actually reduced by 6.5% in a time when our economy grew by 6.5%.

It is hard for me to square the circle as to how my colleague could be upset about withdrawing from Kyoto, which was so ineffective, it is obvious, yet not recognize the great work that has been accomplished over these last six or seven years.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very serious for this government to withdraw from Kyoto, and we denounced this action. If the government claims to want to protect the environment, it cannot turn around and do the opposite. Obviously, since my colleague acknowledged that emission levels have remained steady and even increased, we cannot disregard our environmental responsibilities. It is more urgent and necessary than ever to focus on the environment and protect our ecosystem.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can see what kind of government we have here. I appreciate my colleague’s comments, because they are bang on. She has put her finger on the real environmental issue here and how this government simply does not pay any attention to the many environmental needs.

We have said that we are prepared to support the bill so that it can move forward. We have concerns about the oil companies and the fact that they would be able to explore for oil under the island. That is why we want the bill referred to committee.

However, this government slashed the Parks Canada budget by $29 million, while providing $1 million in federal grants to highly profitable gas and mining companies.

We heard comments from the Conservatives about what they did at Lake Simcoe. What they did was eliminate environmental protection under the Navigable Waterways Protection Act, while providing $29 million to remove the phosphorus. On one hand, the government says it wants to provide assistance, but then it takes it away with the other hand.

Could my colleague speak about the fact that the government hands out a great deal of money with one hand and takes it away with the other?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments and her speech.

As she pointed out, the Conservatives' logic is ridiculous, given that they made $29 million in cuts and eliminated 600 jobs at Parks Canada. At the same time, they would like us to believe that they are in touch with what is going on with the environment and our ecosystems.

They are clearly not doing enough with respect to the environment. There are also concerns, which is why it is important that this bill be referred to committee for further study, particularly with regard to matters related to oil companies and any potentially related activities.

It is absolutely clear that this bill needs to be referred to committee for further review because a number of issues are very worrisome.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak at second reading in support of Bill S-15, which is the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act.

The main purpose of this legislation is to legally protect forever the natural and cultural values of that treasure known as Sable Island. As the title of the act suggests, through this legislation, we would be expanding the national parks system to conserve Sable Island as our nation's 43rd national park.

As anyone who has resided or visited eastern Canada knows, islands are plentiful throughout this great region. Two of our nation's 10 provinces are islands: the inspiring rock of Newfoundland and Labrador; and the red sands and green fields of Prince Edward Island. There is New Brunswick's Grand Manan Island, Cape Breton Island of Nova Scotia, the Magdalen Islands of Quebec, P.E.I.'s Lennox Island and Fogo Island off Newfoundland. Each of these and other islands have contributed to shaping the distinct nature and culture of what we call Canada.

Over time, as we have settled and developed these grand islands, we have seized the opportunity to protect the nationally significant landscapes on some of these islands.

For example, Gros Morne and Terra Nova National Parks provide an opportunity for Canadians to explore and discover the east and west coast of Newfoundland. Prince Edward Island National Park is famous for its sandy beaches, red cliffs and the house that inspired the novel Anne of Green Gables and for protecting the piping plover habitat. There is the world renowned Cabot Trail that winds through Cape Breton Highlands National Park. Our government is working with the Province of Quebec to assess the potential for a marine protected area in the waters off the Magdalen Islands.

Now we are on the cusp of adding that mysterious and far offshore place known as Sable Island to our national parks system. I hope that all hon. members will join me in supporting Bill S-15.

Throughout this debate, we have heard many testimonials on the natural and cultural attributes of Sable Island that have inspired us to add it to our national parks system. We are impressed by the fact that this island of 30 square kilometres, rising out of the Atlantic Ocean almost 300 kilometres southeast of Halifax, continues to survive as a shifting sandbar on the edge of the continental shelf.

We are inspired that on this island, composed mainly of sand, with sparse vegetation, so far from shore, life abounds. There are 190 plant species, 350 bird species, including the endangered roseate tern and Ipswich sparrow, grey seals and those famous Sable Island horses.

We marvel at the attempts made throughout the 1600s and 1700s to settle the island, despite the rough seas, the storms and fogs that make Sable Island such a hazard to navigation. The more than 350 recorded shipwrecks in this area stand as a testament to the difficulty of simply accessing Sable Island, let alone trying to settle it.

We are hopeful that in taking action to protect Sable Island under the Canada National Parks Act, future generations will be proud that the House of Commons, in 2013, developed, debated and passed legislation that enabled the protection of this magnificent and mysterious island.

As I have followed this debate, it appears to me that all parties in the House support the proposal to establish Sable Island as a national park reserve. Many members spoke of the urgent need to get on with the job, as this has been so many years in the making. It is clear from public consultations undertaken by Parks Canada in 2010 that this support and sense of urgency echoes the passionate views of Canadians, especially Nova Scotians. Establishing Sable Island national park reserve of Canada is the right thing to do, and the time to do it is now.

I would also observe a high degree of support for putting in place a legislative ban on drilling, from the surface of Sable Island out to one nautical mile from the shoreline. Many who have participated in this debate have acknowledged and thanked the petroleum companies, such as ExxonMobil Canada, for amending its existing significant discovery licenses to incorporate this legislative ban on exploratory and development drilling.

However, there appears to be one key concern with Bill S-15, and that is the proposal to allow the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to authorize low-impact seismic activity on Sable Island.

I would point out that in reality, the board currently has the authority to permit seismic activity on Sable Island. What Bill S-15 proposes is to limit that authority to low-impact seismic activity. In light of this, I would like to spend the next few minutes speaking to this concern.

As previous speakers have noted, we are establishing Sable Island national park reserve in one of North America's largest active petroleum fields. As we heard earlier, there is a federal-provincial legislative framework in place under the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act that administers all petroleum matters in the Nova Scotia offshore. Since 1988, this legislation has taken precedence over all other federal legislation in this region, including the Canada National Parks Act. As the preamble to Bill S-15 makes clear, this legislation will continue to take precedence.

In August 1986, the Government of Canada and the Province of Nova Scotia signed the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore petroleum resources accord. Under the accord, Canada and Nova Scotia agreed to develop oil and gas in the offshore in a manner that would harmonize the interests of all Canadians and those who reside in the province.

The accord called on both parties to pass mirror legislation to create a unified administrative regime for offshore petroleum resources. This goes to the heart of our deliberations. To give legal effect to the 1986 accord, both governments passed legislation in their respective legislatures, with essentially the same wording.

While the names of these bills are a mouthful, for the record, the Government of Canada passed the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, and the Province of Nova Scotia passed the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation (Nova Scotia) Act. Members will recall that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act takes precedence over all other acts. Thus, to put in place a legal ban against drilling on the surface of Sable Island and to limit potential seismic activity to low impact, both the federal and the provincial accord acts must be amended. This fact has profound implications for our deliberations.

On April 24 of this year, the hon. Charlie Parker, the New Democratic Minister of Energy, tabled Bill 59 in the Nova Scotia legislature to amend the provincial petroleum accord act for several purposes. First was to prohibit the carrying on of work related to drilling for petroleum, including exploratory drilling, in or within one nautical mile of Sable Island national park reserve. Second was to limit the surface access rights provided for under the accord act to, among other things, low-impact seismic activity. Third was to set out a process under which the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board must consult with, and consider the advice of, Parks Canada when considering an application to authorize petroleum-related work or activity in the national park reserve.

When the proposed provincial bill was referred to its law amendments committee, there was one witness, the Ecology Action Centre, that recommended that the bill be amended to delete the option of conducting low-impact seismic activity on Sable Island. However, the New Democratic government chose not to amend its legislation to delete the reference to low-impact seismic activity. The Nova Scotia legislature followed suit, passing Bill 59 without amendment. On May 10, 2013, the provincial bill was given royal assent.

In short, the provincial New Democratic government has passed the legislation called for under the terms of the 2011 national park establishment agreement signed by Premier Darrell Dexter and the federal Minister of the Environment and witnessed by Mr. Leonard Preyra, the provincial Minister of Communities, Culture, and Heritage, and the hon. member for Central Nova.

The provincial New Democratic government was satisfied with the arrangement and was not prepared to amend its legislation. Nova Scotia now awaits the outcome of our deliberations to designate Sable Island national park reserve under the Canada National Parks Act.

I recount this history, because given the concerns expressed about low-seismic activity, it is important to accurately outline the work that would be required in the weeks and months ahead should consideration be given to amending Bill S-15 as the only means of remedying these concerns.

Given that Canada and Nova Scotia passed mirror legislation in 1988 to implement the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore petroleum accord, and given that our Bill S-15 and the Province's Bill 59 have developed mirror legislation to amend these acts to implement the drilling ban and to limit seismic activity to low impact, and given that Nova Scotia has passed its Bill 59 without amendment, the implication for our work is clear: should we decide the amend Bill S-15, additional work would need to be undertaken.

The provincial New Democratic government would have to decide whether it is prepared to once again amend its provincial accord act, this time to delete or amend references to seismic activity.

While I cannot speak for the provincial New Democratic government, it is clear that in negotiating the national park establishment agreement and in rejecting a prior recommendation to alter the seismic activity reference, they are supportive of the current approach.

Additional consultations would also have to be undertaken with the petroleum industry to determine its views on such a change. Again, while I cannot speak for the industry, it would seem to me that since petroleum activity within the broader Sable basin will continue, industry and the offshore petroleum board would require the most accurate seismic data in order to reduce the exploration risk when drilling expensive offshore oil and gas wells.

Allow me to offer a few observations on the issue of low-impact seismic activity.

It is my understanding that the offshore petroleum board has indicated to Parks Canada that it is currently not aware of a need for additional seismic data to be collected on Sable Island. However, these needs may very well change in the future.

In addition, should a company seek an authorization to collect new data from Sable Island, the board would require justification from the company that the current seismic information is not sufficient and that information could not be gathered beyond the national parks reserve.

Failing the above, the board would also seek from the company assurances that other less intrusive techniques could not be used to augment the existing seismic information.

Finally, if after all this it had been clearly demonstrated that a seismic program that would place equipment on Sable Island was required, an environmental assessment would be conducted under the policy of the offshore petroleum board. This assessment would have to meet the Canadian Environment Assessment Act standard of determining the likelihood of an activity to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

Given the requirement of Bill S-15 that the board seek the advice of Parks Canada on such a proposed authorization, Parks Canada would clearly have an opportunity to influence the nature of any proposed seismic undertaking.

I look forward to the in-depth discussions that will ensue at committee on these and other issues related to the designation of Sable Island as a national park reserve, and I trust that clarity will be brought to the issues that have been raised in this chamber.

I would like to address one other major concern that has been expressed during this debate: the notion that Bill S-15 will undermine the integrity of our internationally renowned national parks system. The concern focuses on the suggestion that by continuing to allow the offshore petroleum board to authorize seismic activities, although Bill S-15 proposes to limit that authorization to low impact, we are somehow setting a precedent for other national parks across Canada as well as for future national parks.

I appreciate this concern. It speaks to the non-partisan support that exists in the House for the desirability of protecting our nationally significant lands and waters in protected national parks for the benefit of present and future generations. It speaks to the actions that Parliament has taken over the decades, indeed, spanning the last three centuries since 1885, when it created Banff National Park to forever set aside iconic landscapes and their resident plant and animal species.

However, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment made clear in her remarks last Thursday, we are giving effect to the drilling ban and to limiting seismic activity to low impact by amending the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Accord Implementation Act, not the Canada National Parks Act. We are not introducing any changes whatsoever to the Canada National Parks Act that could be remotely interpreted as allowing seismic activity in any other existing national park. I cannot be clearer on this point. It will not be allowed in Aulavik National Park or in Yoho National Park or in any other national park in between.

I would also like to make it clear that we are not amending the Canada National Parks Act to permit low-impact seismic activity on Sable Island: seismic activity is already allowed on Sable Island. We are amending the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to restrict any future seismic work to low impact on Sable Island. Thus, it will only be within Sable Island national park reserve that at some future date the offshore petroleum board may authorize low-impact seismic activity.

Through Bill S-15, we are enhancing the integrity of our national parks system. We are bringing the highest level of federal legislative protection to Sable Island as a national park reserve.

As the parliamentary secretary also made clear, when we negotiate for the creation of new national parks, we are often challenged to consider whether or not to allow certain activities to continue on a case-by-case basis. For the most part, we are able to achieve a new national park that respects the act and that is completely true to the best of our intentions, but sometimes that is just not possible. That simple reality is no reason to completely abandon the idea of designating an area a national park.

I would remind the House that it was only in 2009 that Parliament passed legislation authorizing the permitting of several mineral access roads through the expanded Nahanni National Park Reserve. This was no doubt a difficult decision, but one that made possible a six-fold expansion of Nahanni, producing what was referred to as the greatest conservation decision of this generation.

As we move forward with Bill S-15, I trust that we will balance our duty to maintain the integrity of our national parks system with the opportunity to finally provide Sable Island with the level of protection and conservation framework that has been called for over the past 50 years. With this approach in Bill S-15 to balance the conservation and development needs of Sable Island with the broader Nova Scotia offshore needs, with the balancing of the goals of the offshore petroleum accord act with the Canada National Parks Act, we are achieving real conservation gains for Sable Island.

Let me paraphrase the hon. Minister of the Environment in his remarks last Thursday night. Through Bill S-15, we are accomplishing the following: a new national park reserve for Sable Island, Canada's 43rd national park; the application of a comprehensive conservation framework to Sable Island for the first time in 50 years; a legislative ban that for the first time will prohibit all exploratory and development drilling for petroleum resources from the surface of Sable Island; the creation of a legislative buffer zone around Sable Island that will prohibit drilling out to one nautical mile; a prohibition on the extraction of non-petroleum resources from beneath the surface of Sable Island; a limit on the number of petroleum-related activities that can be authorized by the offshore petroleum board on Sable Island national park reserve; limiting the current ability of offshore petroleum board to authorize any seismic activity on Sable Island to low-impact activity; providing a legislative requirement for the offshore petroleum board to seek and consider advice from Parks Canada should it choose to authorize activities listed in Bill S-15; and developing a management plan within five years that will direct the necessary measures to protect Sable Island to enable visitor experiences that respect the fragility of the island and to forge partnerships with interested stakeholders.

Finally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment for their dedicated leadership on collaboratively developing legislation that will enable the creation of Sable Island national park reserve as Canada's 43rd national park. It is their leadership that has brought this legislation before us today. Now it is up to this chamber to complete our business to ensure that Sable Island will be forever protected so that future generations, whether they choose to visit it or not, will know that this Parliament took action to ensure that the natural and cultural values of this place persist forever.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of Canada's eight national wildlife areas, the Baie de l'Isle-Verte National Wildlife Area, is in my riding in Quebec. It is one of the largest protected marshlands in the whole country.

Since the government got its majority, the organization in charge of this protected area, the Corporation PARC Bas-Saint-Laurent has had to wait nine months every year for its tiny envelope of funding to be renewed, funding that was cut by 56% last year. Local partners now have to cover the cost of 90% of the resources the organization needs just to keep trails open and maintain the park. That is the true impact of the Conservatives' cuts and their attitude toward parks in our regions.

Creating parks is all well and good, but we have to wonder whether that comes with legitimate protection and the resources to maintain a protected area.

We will support the Senate bill before us, but we are actually quite concerned. The federal government keeps talking about low impact, but it will not tell us what that really means. What is the standard? What qualifies as low impact? They will not tell us. The government's lack of transparency here is par for the course, particularly when it comes to environmental issues.

How can my colleague be okay with creating parks—our Conservative friends even included it in their 2012 speech—when the facts show that parks are getting fewer and fewer resources and less and less protection? There are more parks, but they are receiving less protection and not enough resources for maintenance.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that under times of fiscal restraint, we all face difficult choices in terms of how much action the government can take on any specific issue, but there are times when, in spite of fiscal restraint, action has to be taken that shows vision and demonstrates leadership. No government in history has demonstrated more leadership in terms of preserving the environment and creating more national parks than this government in the last seven years.

I would like to refer to something that happened well over 100 years ago, also in a time of extreme fiscal restraint. In 1893, government officials decided that the government would not establish Canada's fourth national park, suggesting it was best to focus on the three existing parks: Banff, Glacier and Yoho. The minister of the day rejected their advice, signing the order, creating a new park, and remarking, “Posterity will bless us”—and it has.

Alberta's Waterton Lakes National Park is a remarkable ecological jewel, a world heritage site and the world's first international peace park. It has prompted conservation partnerships between the Nature Conservancy of Canada and a number of ranchers adjacent to the park. Imagine what would have happened if government had not taken that action.

I am convinced that 20, 40 or 100 years from now our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will say that Parliament acted in 2013 to preserve Sable Island and that they are really thankful we did.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Kitchener—Conestoga and he had nice-sounding words, but making a national park is just not enough to do the job.

Prince Edward Island National Park, or Green Gables, is in my riding, and the big issue is the resources that will accompany the putting in place of a national park to establish the protective measures necessary.

I can tell the member that with the cutbacks at Parks Canada over the last number of years—and I do not know what will happen this summer with further cutbacks—there are not sufficient wardens to show people how to handle things within that national park now. The sand dunes are very fragile structures and depend on grass to hold the sands in place. People are going up those sand hills and coasting down them. They are tearing the sand hills apart, and there is no one there to explain how that cannot be done within that national park zone.

Yes, Liberals support its becoming a national park, but resources are required to do the job that has to be done to preserve the natural resources that are there, and I do not see those resources accompanying this bill.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague commented on “words and no action”. Well, of all people to use that phrase, I do not think this member should be the one. Under the member's government in 13 years, the Kyoto accord was signed with big intentions of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We all know what happened: they went up 30% under Liberal leadership.

Under this government, at a time of 6.5% growth in economic activity, our greenhouse gases have gone down by 6.5%. If one is to talk about words and no action; this is action.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 1:26 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, June 6, 2013, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)