Evidence of meeting #82 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parks.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you. I'd like to follow up on that, if I may.
Why is it not proper for Parks Canada to be the last say when it comes to protecting the ecological integrity of the island?
8:05 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board
Parks Canada would certainly have all of their input, and I can't really foresee a situation where we would not accept the input from Parks Canada. But with all due respect, Parks Canada is not the expert—and they would say the same thing—in oil and gas activities and in the management of oil and gas activities. Our board has been around for 20-odd years doing that very thing.
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Butler, very specifically, what elements would you like to see changed in this bill if you had a wish list?
8:05 p.m.
Policy Director, Ecology Action Centre
I'd like to see the parties come together and agree to not do any exploration on the island, and I'd like to see parties come together to agree to either move the exclusion zone further out or leave it where it is and not allow horizontal drilling.
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Okay. I appreciate that.
As you know, Ms. Woodley, Sable Island is a very special place from a wildlife and ecosystem perspective, but also policy-wise. We have never put a national park in a functioning oil field. I'm really concerned, as Ms. Leslie said, about the precedent this may set.
Are you concerned about having this park in an active oil field? I understand there's the legislation that's.... I've been told by Parks Canada that this will be protection. I've heard from Parks Canada that this will not take place, but it still could be perceived as a foot in the door.
Are you concerned that it may set a precedent?
8:05 p.m.
National Conservation Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Thank you, Ms. Duncan.
Would it be possible to ask Chris Miller to respond? I'm happy to, but he's sitting there in Nova Scotia and well placed to respond as well.
8:05 p.m.
Dr. Chris Miller Conservation Biologist, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Yes, I can respond to that.
As an organization, CPAWS is opposed to any oil and gas activity occurring on Sable Island or in any national park.
On the specific issue of precedent, that's a bit different, because it has to do with the stacking of the two pieces of legislation, the Canada National Parks Act and the offshore accord implementation act. Because this bill does not amend the Canada National Parks Act, that actually, in our opinion, limits the concern of precedence, because it's the paramountcy clause contained in the offshore accord implementation act that creates this special circumstance where the possibility of oil and gas occurring within a national park exists.
That being said, we know, or suspect, that in the future there may be individuals, companies, sectors, or even jurisdictions that might try to take advantage of that situation or try to suggest that there is a precedent there. We would look to Parks Canada, to the federal government, and to the Nova Scotia government to strongly refute any such assertation that a precedent had been set.
8:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you so much.
I have one last question for Mr. Pinks. The CNSOPB promotes oil and gas exploration in the area through providing licences and permits. On the other hand, it has an environmental oversight component. These could be perceived as being at odds with one another.
How would you respond?
8:10 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board
I'd respond by saying the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board does not promote exploration and development in the offshore. The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board's responsibility is to regulate those companies that step forward and say that they have a desire to do those activities, and we have a rigorous authorization process in place.
When it comes to the licences—you hit on the licences—we run a process, and that's all. The process is that we will post parcels for consideration. There's a single criterion. We will evaluate those bids. Those are fundamental decisions and the two levels of government decide whether those licences should be issued or not.
We run on the licensing strictly a process. We do not promote the oil and gas development. We regulate, and we regulate to make sure it's done safely.
8:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Duncan.
We're going to move now to the five-minute rounds, beginning with Madam Quach.
8:10 p.m.
NDP
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all of you. It is rare that we have the opportunity to hear both sides of the story. It is very interesting.
My first questions are for Ms. Woodley.
You said that despite the fact that you are in favour of creating the national reserve, or the park, you remain concerned about exploration activities. Even though some say it is low impact, you say it may not really be that low. Could you elaborate on that, please?
8:10 p.m.
National Conservation Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Again, is it okay if I defer to Dr. Miller?
8:10 p.m.
Conservation Biologist, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Yes, I can respond to that.
From our perspective, Sable Island is this incredibly sensitive ecosystem. It's a sand island located a couple of hundred kilometres off the coast of Nova Scotia in the rough North Atlantic. It's a sensitive ecosystem, so the potential for impacts occurring there are magnified over the same activities occurring elsewhere. In addition to that, national parks are supposed to be areas that are set aside from industrial influences. As an organization, CPAWS is fundamentally opposed to any industrial oil and gas activity occurring inside national parks.
June 17th, 2013 / 8:10 p.m.
NDP
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you.
Ms. Woodley, you also talked about section 15 of the bill, which concerns Jasper National Park of Canada and the Marmot Basin Ski Area. According to the bill, hectares will be exchanged, and some sections will be given back to the park for conservation while another will be given for the ski area. You said that despite that, the ecological integrity gain for Jasper National Park of Canada hadn't been demonstrated. Could you further describe the risks of passing section 15?
8:10 p.m.
National Conservation Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
Thank you for that question.
I'm suggesting the environmental gain is not determined by the lines on the map, but by the development and the activities that will flow from that change in the leasehold areas. This act changes the lines on the map. The next decisions that will happen will determine exactly what happens in that leasehold area. Although those decisions aren't made, there is already a package of potential developments that will be going forward as a result of these changes.
That will determine how those proposals are considered, and the decisions made there will determine if there's a substantial environmental gain. Looking at the initial proposals on this, our sense is that this is unlikely, largely because some of developments could result in more activity, more development, including in caribou habitat. Studies are ongoing on that, so we're awaiting the results of those studies to be able to be more conclusive, but we are concerned about that, and we'll be tracking, monitoring and participating in those processes.
It's important for the committee members to understand that a net gain has not been achieved at this stage. The next decisions will determine whether or not there is a substantial gain. Our sense at this point, from looking at what's coming, is that may well not be the case.
8:15 p.m.
NDP
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Given those fears or the fact that there isn't enough information to determine whether or not there is a gain, would you nevertheless go forward with this bill? Do you think including the park in the bill is going too far? Or does that issue not concern you to that degree?
8:15 p.m.
National Conservation Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
We have not recommended any amendments at this point but we are flagging that the decisions to come will be critical ones. We'll be participating in that and looking to the Government of Canada and Parks Canada to make the decisions that are consistent with maintaining and restoring ecological integrity in Jasper.
8:15 p.m.
NDP
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Thank you.
I have a last question, and it is for Minister Preyra.
You said that the status quo wasn't a sustainable option currently, on Sable Island. Could you explain why?
8:15 p.m.
Minister of Communities, Culture and Heritage, Government of Nova Scotia
Thank you.
Since I don't have the confidence, the vocabulary or the grammar necessary to speak very accurately in French, I will answer in English. I apologize.
The problem is that the Canada Shipping Act is a bit of an anachronism. Having the coast guard manage Sable Island is a bit of an anachronism. As the coast guard retreats and as lighthouses become less important with global navigation, there's a vacuum there at the moment. Something has to be done to fill that vacuum. After consultations, we came to the conclusion that Parks Canada and the regime around that and the conversation with the Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board was the best protection.
I don't know if some of you saw the Chronicle Herald this morning, but the tour company, Adventure Canada, wants to have a ship offshore of Sable. A couple of hundred people will be there. They want to do tours off the island. Sable Island is becoming more and more accessible, and our question is.... The danger to Sable is posed by people who want to come to the island, and we don't have a regime for managing it at the moment. We need to set up a system for visitation. We need to set up a system where people on the island are carefully regulated.
If I could go back to a question from Ms. Duncan, Parks Canada will have the final say on ecological integrity on all other issues, but there will be a conversation as it relates to oil and gas. On everything else, Parks Canada will regulate visitation and activities. There will be a conversation with Canada-Nova Scotia, the government process there. Ecological integrity is threatened more by people. Adventure Canada is quite a reputable company, so I don't want to.... But people have said that they want to have destination weddings, extreme sports, all kinds of things, and we don't have a management plan in place, which is something we desperately need. That's what this legislation does.
8:15 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board
Could I very quickly add to that? Any operator who wanted to go onshore would have to abide by the parks management manual as well.
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Thank you. We're way over time on that one, Madam Quach. I think it was a great question, so I wanted to get that one in. Sorry to show my bias.
Mr. Lunney for five minutes.
8:15 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
Thank you very much.
I want to pick up on that theme. I thank you for the passionate description of the enthusiasm for Sable Island.
I want to come back to that, but first I want to ask a question, again, about the ecological integrity of this unique piece of geography. It is unique. It's sand. Here it is, what did you say, 200 kilometres offshore. It's 42 kilometres by 1.5 kilometres at its widest. It's a nice arc out there. It's between the Labrador current and the Gulf current coming up the other way. It is unique, and it moves, so that also is a challenge. It's been moving over time. It's being moved by the currents.
I'm going to direct my first question to Mr. Miller. It has to do with ecological integrity and some of the inhabitants of the island, and that's the horses. There are some 400 horses, I understand. They're very unique critters. They've survived there since the mid-1700s. They were introduced around 1760. I think it's the position of CPAWS, and Mr. Miller, I'm going to ask you to address this, that part of the reason for establishing a park is to help preserve the horses. But there are others who argue that the horses actually are a threat to the ecological integrity of this island. I just want you to clarify if you disagree or agree with the view that the horses actually represent a threat to the ecological integrity of the island.