Environment Committee on June 10th, 2010

[Alan Latourelle]

That is not in the agreement. The agreement before you is focused on the area that we own and operate, which is the national marine conservation area.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay, so nobody from Parks Canada--and I assume Ms. Bourbonnière neither--is able to help Canadians understand how all this connects?

I ask because there's a really important overriding question here about tanker travel. There's even a lot of pressure being placed on the Vancouver port authority now. They're seeing three to four tankers a month now coming into the port. There's inexorable pressure being put now, and we want to get some assurances, if this is going to happen, about how it links with the larger question of offshore oil and gas and transportation of oil.

Can you tell us how this all fits together?

[Alan Latourelle]

In terms of offshore oil exploration, as you are aware, there is no drilling allowed in the NMCA, in the proposed area. From a Parks Canada perspective, I think that's a significant accomplishment in ensuring that this place is protected for future generations.

In terms of the broader issues, I will let my colleague Kevin McNamee make a few comments on that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. McNamee, if you could, while you're addressing that, it's not so much inside the NMCA, but what we've just learned from the Gulf of Mexico, where property owners in the Florida Keys are already seeing their property prices down 15 to 20 points.

[Kevin McNamee, Director, Parks Establishment, Parks Canada Agency]

There are a couple of things your question touches on, Mr. McGuinty.

First of all, there was an announcement by the federal government to look at an area of interest for a future marine protected area in Hecate Strait. Our interim management plan, consistent with the work plan under the Convention on Biological Diversity, does speak to our working collaboratively together in the future, when there are other marine protected areas, to deal with a range of management issues.

With respect to the Enbridge proposal that we were asked about at the last meeting, the maps that were filed by Enbridge with the National Energy Board—which are on their website—indicate that they are proposing a route 60 kilometres offshore. It's the responsibility of the National Energy Board to take a look at a range of those issues under their terms of reference.

Our authority and our ability to deal with such issues from a regulatory perspective is within the boundary of the national marine conservation area. But again, I stress, consistent with the convention, the interim management plan does speak about working with a range of other federal authorities in a non-regulatory manner to look at the future of the area. But we must have it designated first, before we can start to look at those issues in detail.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Can I ask then, because you've opened the door, Mr. McNamee, is Parks Canada making representations to the NEB as part of its Arctic assessment, or are you going to speak to the NEB now that we've taken this important step for an MPA in this particularly sensitive area? For an oil slick, 60 kilometres is not a long way, as we're learning now, and there's huge pressure. The B.C. government is in favour.

I don't assume Parks Canada is shy or self-effacing to the extent that you're not comfortable making representations with respect to your mandate to a regulator like the NEB. Are you doing that?

[Alan Latourelle]

There are a few points I'd like to make. First—and this is consistent across Canada in all of our programs, be they national parks, national historic sites, or national marine conservations areas—where we have areas of interest we're working in, we do not as an agency participate in processes until such time as we have a formal national park established or a national marine conservation area, or the same for national historic sites.

So once we have the Gwaii Haanas national marine conservation area reserve established, clearly, we will be looking at all of those issues in developing our strategies as an agency. We have not made a decision one way or the other at this point, because we were in the planning stage.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be sharing my time with my colleague, Mr. Ouellet.

Once again, welcome to the committee.

I would like to know whether there has ever been any exploratory drilling in the proposed protected area.

[Kevin McNamee]

Yes, there has. In the 1960s, especially between 1968 and 1969, a company drilled 8 or 9 holes underground, but, at the time, it was outside the boundaries of our marine conservation area. We were told that it did not involve any resources intended for exploitation.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I read the discussions surrounding the bill passed in 2001 and resulting in the Marine Conservation Areas Act. Among other things, I read the committee's exchanges from October 30, 2001. Parliamentarians were called upon to discuss section 13. As you said yourself, it prohibits anyone from exploring or exploiting hydrocarbons. That is clear.

Is it possible, however, that the original wording put forward by the government was different, indicating instead that the minister could permit the use of directional drilling equipment, in the case of sub-seabed drilling for hydrocarbons, from a point outside a marine conservation area? I believe there was an amendment, given that, in the beginning, it was possible to undertake what was known as directional drilling, which consists of drilling outside the marine conservation area for possible oil.

My understanding is that there is no problem under that legislation. But would it be possible to use directional drilling to look for resources from outside the marine conservation area?

[Alan Latourelle]

Mr. Chair, I can assure you that our legislation does not permit directional drilling there.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

That is not my question. I want to know whether it might be possible under other pieces of legislation. There are the Canada National Parks Act and the Marine Conservation Areas Act, I know, but could directional drilling be possible under other acts? Have you looked into that before?

[Alan Latourelle]

Various components of our legislation are important and need to be clarified. First of all, we need to have ownership of the marine floor. And we do, which ensures we have the control. Second, our legislation makes it very clear that drilling is not allowed. I am not aware of other acts that might...

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Does Natural Resources Canada, for example, have other acts that might apply?

[Alan Latourelle]

No.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

You are certain of that?

[Alan Latourelle]

I will ask my colleague to confirm that.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Do you know what I mean? I just want to be certain of that.

[Lucie Bourbonnière]

There are certain principles of interpretation that may apply in such a situation. If drilling were permitted under another law of very general application and, as a result, that general law conflicted with this act, which is very specific, this act would take precedence and apply, because it clearly prohibits the activity in question.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

This act takes precedence over the others?

[Lucie Bourbonnière]

It overrides laws of general application.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

If there were ever an issue, it would involve a legal challenge.

[Lucie Bourbonnière]

Yes.