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

[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 full 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.