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.

Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act

[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]

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?