Evidence of meeting #81 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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I'd like to reconvene as a full committee in open session.
We welcome to the table our witnesses from Parks Canada: Mr. Alan Latourelle, the CEO, and Kevin McNamee, director of parks establishment.
Welcome to our witnesses.
I understand Mr. Latourelle will start with a 10-minute opening comment, and then we will follow up with questions from our committee members.
Welcome, Mr. Latourelle.
Alan Latourelle Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to appear before the committee to speak about Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada's national parks act.
As you mentioned, I'm Alan Latourelle, chief executive officer. As we celebrate Public Service Week, I'd like to acknowledge the exceptional contribution to Canadians of my colleague, Kevin McNamee, who has led the most significant expansion in our national parks system.
Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada
Before responding to the committee's questions on Bill S-15, I would like to point out some of the ways in which Parks Canada is building on a tremendous legacy.
We are beginning our second century of the administration of our national network of national parks, national marine conservation areas, and national historic sites for future generations. I'm very proud of the fact that in recent years Parks Canada has received both international and national acclaim for its work in expanding our network of protected areas and offering visitors the chance to experience our natural and cultural heritage, and in working with aboriginal peoples.
Organizations ranging from the World Wildlife Fund International and the National Geographic Society to the Royal Canadian Geographical Society and Hostelling International-Canada have recognized the dedicated efforts of the Parks Canada team. But we cannot rest on our laurels, Mr. Chair. Our challenges are daunting. We are working to conclude agreements for several national parks, and as Canada becomes increasingly urban and as new Canadians make their homes here, and as younger generations come of age, our challenge moving forward is to connect Canadians to their national and historic treasures.
Allow me to now address Bill S-15. The bill has two parts. The first part deals with the establishment of Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada, and the second part amends section 4 and schedules 4 and 5 of the Canada National Parks Act.
Establishing Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada is a key action toward the Government of Canada's commitment in the 2011 Speech from the Throne to create significant new protected areas. This bill is a critical step in implementing the terms of the national parks establishment agreement, which the Minister of the Environment and the Nova Scotia Premier, Darrell Dexter, signed in October of 2011. Under that agreement, both governments agreed to take the necessary steps to bring legislative protection to this iconic island.
Mr. Chair, the natural and cultural features that define Sable Island were addressed many times during the second reading in the House of Commons, so allow me to move directly to the provisions of Bill S-15.
To enable the establishment of Sable Island National Park Reserve under the terms of the agreement negotiated with the Province of Nova Scotia, Bill S-15 amends three federal pieces of legislation: the Canada National Parks Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, and the Canada Shipping Act. Let me first address the amendments to the Canada National Parks Act.
Clause 4 of Bill S-15 provides for the protection of Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada by amending schedule 2 of the Canada National Parks Act to add a legal description of the park reserve. Schedule 2 is the list of national park reserves, while schedule 1 lists national parks. The boundary of Sable Island National Park Reserve extends to the low-water mark and does not include the buffer zone where the ban on drilling for petroleum resources will also apply.
Bill S-15 designates Sable Island as a national park reserve for the purpose of protecting the asserted aboriginal rights and title of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia to this area. A national park reserve designation is used where there are outstanding claims by aboriginal peoples regarding aboriginal rights and title and these claims have been accepted by Canada for negotiation, such as the case with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia.
Mr. Chair, it's important to note that a national park reserve enjoys all of the same protections that a national park does, while respecting the assertions of aboriginal or treaty rights. It is not a lesser category of a national park. Some of our most famous national parks, including Nahanni, Pacific Rim, and Gwaii Haanas are designated as being national park reserves under the Canada National Parks Act.
In November 2010, the Mi'kmaq 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 and by an Act of Parliament.”
Consultations with the Mi'kmaq will continue until the final step in the establishment process, namely the designation of Sable Island as a full-fledged national park. This will not happen until the final accord has been negotiated by Canada, Nova Scotia, and the Mi'kmaq through the “Made in Nova Scotia” process. I can confirm that there is no time limit on the national park reserve designation. It will apply until we have reached an agreement with the Mi'kmaq, confirming their role with respect to a final national park.
Clause 3 of Bill S-15 provides for the administration and continuation of leases, easements, and licences of occupation in or on Sable Island National Park Reserve, since there are 46 structures located on Sable Island—buildings for accommodations; offices; storage buildings; communication towers; wind turbines; light station towers; garages; sheds; and utility buildings for power distribution, water, and sewage.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Mr. Latourelle, I'm just going to interrupt you for a minute.
I'm considering your notes. If you're planning on reading the entire thing, we're going to be well beyond the ten minutes. Is there a part you want to focus on?
I just want to give you adequate warning, and I won't take this time off.
Thank you.
Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada
Mr. Chair, permit me to address the amendments that Bill S-15 proposes for the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. All petroleum-related activities of Nova Scotia's offshore, including in and around Sable Island, are administered under the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act.
As the preamble to Bill S-15 reiterates, section 4 of the accord states that the act takes precedence over all other legislation applicable to offshore areas, including Sable Island.
Thus the challenge in creating Sable Island National Park Reserve was to negotiate an agreement that would not have an adverse impact on Canada's and Nova Scotia's interests in offshore petroleum resources, while it upheld the integrity of Sable Island National Park Reserve.
Bill S-15 provides for several conservation gains with respect to Sable Island.
As you know, a number of petroleum-related activities can still be authorized on Sable Island National Park Reserve, as required, under the terms of a national park agreement.
Clause 3 confirms that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board will continue to be the body to authorize such petroleum activities. While the board will have to consult with Parks Canada on such requests, we do not want to create within our own organization a second regulatory body.
Clause 8 amends the federal accord to restrict the number of current activities the board can authorize on Sable Island.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
May I rudely interrupt?
I'm asking for agreement here. I don't mind Parks Canada going longer. I would like this fully read so that we're not missing pieces.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I'm happy with that, but I didn't want to take that prerogative as chair.
Proceed, Mr. Latourelle. We'll give you an extra ten minutes.
Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada
Thank you. It will be faster.
Clause 8 amends the federal accord act to restrict the number of current activities the board can authorize on Sable Island to four categories: access to existing wellheads on Sable Island for the purpose of safety and environmental protection; low-impact petroleum activities, including seismic, geological, and geophysical programs on the surface of Sable Island; emergency evacuation capacity for offshore workers; and maintenance of emergency facilities on Sable Island in case the island needs to be used to provide safe harbour to offshore workers in times of emergency.
Mr. Chair, a review of the debate in the House made clear that the key concern is focused on the ability of the Offshore Petroleum Board to authorize low-impact seismic activity. Allow me to offer several comments on this issue.
First, the Offshore Petroleum Board currently has the authority to authorize seismic activity on Sable Island. The purpose of Bill S-15 is to limit the board's current authority to consideration of low-impact seismic.
Second, as the board has indicated to Parks Canada in discussions, if a company wanted to collect new data from Sable Island, the board would ask the company to justify why the current seismic information is not sufficient and to demonstrate that such data could not be gathered beyond the national park reserve. If not, then the board would want assurances from the company that other less intrusive techniques could not be used to augment the existing seismic information. If the only remaining option required a seismic program placing equipment on Sable Island, an environmental assessment would be conducted by the Offshore Petroleum Board. Such an assessment would have to meet the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act's standard of determining the likelihood of an activity that causes significant adverse environmental effects. Given that clause 7 of Bill S-15 requires that the board seek the advice and recommendation of Parks Canada on such a proposed authorization, Parks Canada would have an opportunity to influence the nature of any proposed seismic program.
As members heard during the House debate, the last time a seismic program was undertaken on Sable Island was in 1999. A code of practice formed part of Mobil's environmental assessment and protection plan and was the principal instrument in guiding mitigation measures related to the seismic program. Negotiated by Zoe Lucas, an expert on Sable Island, the code compelled the company to make a number of changes to the nature and timing of its seismic program, a program, it was concluded, that did not have an impact on Sable Island. A similar code of practice would be required should any future seismic program be recommended.
I realize the central concern is that Bill S-15 does not define “low impact”, but, Mr. Chair, any amendments to Bill S-15 with respect to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act would require the Province of Nova Scotia to agree with these amendments and then go through the process of also amending their legislation.
For that reason, Parks Canada and the board have discussed alternative means to address concerns over defining low-impact seismic activity. Both the board and Parks Canada are committed to: 1) developing together a draft definition or protocol to address the concerns raised regarding low-impact seismic activity; 2) undertaking consultation with the province, industry, stakeholders, and the public on its proposed definition; and 3) identifying an appropriate mechanism under the accord act, be it regulation, directive, guidance, memorandum of understanding, or some other appropriate mechanism to give effect to the final product.
We would certainly welcome any ideas the committee has to assist us.
I want to confirm that, in my view, we are not undermining the integrity of our national parks system. To reiterate, we are not amending the Canada National Parks Act to permit low-impact seismic activity in national parks. We are amending the accord to restrict it to low-impact on Sable Island, and in negotiating new national parks, I can assure this committee that we are not entertaining a similar agreement.
Finally, as I noted earlier, we are also amending the Canada Shipping Act, as Sable Island is currently administered under the act by the Canadian Coast Guard. Bill S-15 will repeal all sections that pertain to Sable Island. Once it becomes law, then the administration of Sable Island will be transferred from the coast guard to Parks Canada.
In concluding my remarks on the first part of the bill, allow me to paraphrase our minister in summarizing the gains that Bill S-15 represents for Sable Island.
First, we are protecting Sable Island under the National Parks Act, the strongest federal conservation legislation, as Canada's 43rd national park.
We are putting in place, for the first time, a legislative ban on exploratory and extractive drilling for petroleum resources from the surface of Sable Island.
We are creating a legislative buffer around the national park reserve that prohibits drilling from its boundary out to one nautical mile.
We are legally limiting the number of current petroleum-related activities that can be permitted on Sable Island and directing that if seismic is permitted it be low-impact.
We are putting in place a legislative requirement for the Offshore Petroleum Board to consult Parks Canada should it want to issue a permit for activity on Sable Island.
We are protecting the asserted aboriginal rights and title by the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia by designating it a national park reserve.
Finally, we will provide opportunities for Canadians to experience Sable Island, either on site or by various other means.
Let me now address part 2 of Bill S-15, which deals with amendments to section 4 and schedules 4 and 5 of the Canada National Parks Act.
Clause 13 of the bill amends section 4 of the Canada National Parks Act to address concerns of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations regarding that section. The bill makes two amendments of a technical nature to section 4. It fixes the discrepancy between the English and French versions and 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 to avoid any misinterpretation of the intent of the proposed changes.
I would like to assure the members of this committee that the wording of subsection 4(1) of the act is not affected by these amendments. The wording of this subsection, which is known as the national parks dedication clause, continues to remain virtually unchanged for over eight decades. This clause provides that:
National parks are dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment and that they are to be maintained and used so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
Clause 14 of the bill makes minor amendments to the description of the commercial zones for the community of Field, British Columbia, located within Yoho National Park of Canada. These minor zoning modifications are not controversial, they have community support, and they are well within the legislated commercial growth limit for Field. The changes will help support services, such as a gas station, required by park visitors and the town's businesses and residents.
Finally, section 15 of the bill amends the leasehold boundary set out in schedule 5 of the act for Marmot Basin Ski Area. This ski area is located within Jasper National Park of Canada.
Questions were raised during second reading of this bill regarding the type of analysis carried out for this proposal, as well as regarding the opportunities for public involvement. I wish to reassure the members of this committee that Parks Canada has in place a comprehensive and tightly controlled policy framework for the management of ski hill operations in national parks. This framework respects the Parks Canada mandate of maintaining or restoring ecological integrity while fostering a sense of connection through memorable visitor experiences and opportunities to learn about our natural and cultural heritage. It also provides ski area operators with greater certainty and predictability for business planning.
There are three main aspects to the Parks Canada policy framework for management of ski area operations in national parks. The first element of this framework is the Parks Canada Ski Area Management Guidelines, revised in 2006, which provide general direction to maintain ecological integrity and economically viable ski area operations within national parks. The second element comprises site-specific guidelines to control development and use at each ski area by setting out the scope, nature and location of potential development that may be considered for the ski area, and under what conditions.
In the case of Marmot Basin, the Marmot Basin Ski Area Site Guidelines for Development and Use were approved by Parks Canada in 2008. They included a comprehensive public participation program and completion of a Strategic Environmental Assessment. These site guidelines 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 third element of the policy framework is a requirement for ski areas to develop long range plans and carry out detailed impact analysis for project proposals that the ski area wishes to advance in a five to fifteen-year time frame.
Marmot Basin is well advanced in the process of preparing its long-range plan, and in fact, its website gives a notice of intent to start public consultations on its long-range plan this fall. Marmot Basin's long-rang plan submissions will be accompanied by a detailed environmental impact analysis consistent with requirements for federal lands under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2013. The purpose, nature, scope, and public participation elements of the process will be similar to previous project assessments conducted by Parks Canada.
The operator of Marmot Basin Ski Area wishes to improve the ski experience at Marmot Basin in order to maintain a competitive position with other new and expanded ski operations in the region. The operator has proposed to remove 118 hectares from its current leasehold in exchange for a smaller parcel of land contiguous to another part of the ski area. The proposed amendment to schedule 5 of the act is a major reduction of the leasehold boundary and a substantial environmental gain for Jasper National Park.
The 118 hectares to be removed from the leasehold is an important habitat for woodland caribou, which is listed under the Species at Risk Act. The area also contains natural mineral licks that attract mountain goats, and it is habitat for other species such as grizzly bear, wolverine and lynx. In fact, in a separate regulatory process, the area will be added to an existing declared wilderness area and will have a greater degree of protection than is currently the case. Uses will be carefully managed to protect the wilderness character of the area. In exchange, Marmot Basin would be granted access to a smaller 60 hectare parcel of less ecologically sensitive land for future development for skiing.
Any proposed development of the exchanged land remains subject to decision-making by Parks Canada under the detailed and public long-range planning process and environmental impact analysis that are part of the system of safeguards that Parks Canada has put in place.
Mr. Chair, the land to be exchanged was carefully selected to avoid caribou habitat and other important wildlife habitat 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 will be conducted in the context of the long-range planning process that Marmot Basin has announced recently.
I would like to point out that this type of proposed land exchange is permitted under Parks Canada's policy regime for ski area management.
The 2006 guidelines specifically allow for the potential to make the modifications proposed where there is a substantial environmental gain.
This applies in situations where there is a leasehold reduction or reconfiguration that results in better protection of sensitive areas and exchange for development of less sensitive areas. This is exactly the situation we are dealing with for the Marmot Ski Basin area proposals. Consultations on these proposed changes where held during the preparation of the guidelines.
This bill brings lasting benefits to the people of Canada. It establishes Canada's 43rd national park by protecting a unique and storied island off the shore of Nova Scotia. It enables changes to enhance the economic viability of the community of Field and of the Marmot Basin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Thank you very much, Mr. Latourelle. You've answered many of the questions that were raised. I appreciate that.
We will move now to questions from committee members. We'll begin with Ms. Rempel, for seven minutes.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
Thank you.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I'll be very pointed with my questions, as I think there's a great desire to move this important legislation forward.
Mr. Latourelle, it's my understanding that this bill is the result of several years of consultation with the Nova Scotia government, industry, first nations people, as well as environmental non-governmental organizations. Is that correct?
Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada
That is correct. The protection of this amazing national park has been in discussion for several years. We've had an extensive public consultation process to arrive at the agreement we've reached with Nova Scotia.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
In debate in the House, my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands made the following statement:
I am very worried about the fact that the bill, which would create a...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.
Given that statement, could you describe if this bill in fact amends the Canada National Parks Act to allow any drilling in other national parks or substantively reduces the ability of that act to protect ecological integrity in Canada's national parks?
Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada
The bill, as presented, does not amend the Canada National Parks Act for those activities. From my perspective—and I can tell you we've had a lot of discussion within the agency—this does not create a precedent for other national parks across Canada.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
Would you characterize this bill as a Trojan Horse that would water down the Canada National Parks Act?
Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada
I would say that the changes that are being proposed do not affect the National Parks Act and will not affect our other national parks in Canada.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
Thank you.
You spoke to perhaps other potential mechanisms of defining what low-impact seismic is. That was something that came up in debate and was explored by members from both parties.
Could you speak to the process for consultation that's undertaken in developing a park management plan? Would there be an opportunity during the consultation process to develop that management plan and perhaps look at a definition such as that?
Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada
To develop a park management plan there was an extensive process of public engagement and public consultation. It actually started when we were going through the process and the public consultation to establish the park. It will continue over the next few years.
It will identify the key objectives in terms of ecological integrity. It will identify the key objectives in terms of visitor experiences, for example, and education. It will also clearly be subject to consultation with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia. As part of that process, Canadians will have an opportunity to shape the future of this amazing national park.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
Thank you.
Along the lines of questioning about the definition of low-impact exploration and low-impact seismic activity, during the development of this bill as well as in the consultation process, could you perhaps describe what your understanding of those activities was per the consultation process?
Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada
I'll refer to Kevin, who has led all of our discussions on that item, to answer that.
Kevin McNamee Director, Parks Establishment, Parks Canada
Thank you.
Our understanding of low-impact seismic was mainly based on the 1999 program that was undertaken on Sable Island. The sound sources that were used came from two vibroseismic trucks that were barged onto the island. They're about the size of gravel trucks. They emit a sound down through the soil, and then there were geophones on the island to receive them. The trucks were kept to the outside of the island, on the beaches, completely out of the vegetated areas, away from wildlife and vegetation. There was a code of practice put into place.
Zoe Lucas, who is an island resident, and also the head of the Green Horse Society and the leading environmentalist for Sable Island, was involved in that program. They negotiated with Mobil changes to that program. They changed the timing of it to avoid the nesting of endangered species, foaling of horses, pupping of seals. They did it in a non-linear fashion because that's one of the environmental concerns about seismic in the boreal and other ecosystems: it's just done without any thought to the landscape. In this case, it was altered.
So there was a whole range of things that went into putting in place a low-impact seismic program.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Centre-North, AB
My understanding is that there's actually a code of practice that has been developed to oversee any type of activity in this regard.
Director, Parks Establishment, Parks Canada
There was a code of practice that was developed by Mobil in 1996 for the 1999 program. That code of practice was the starting point. Ms. Lucas negotiated, along with others, changes to that code of practice that would put into place more stringent action to avoid wildlife, vegetation, and things like that. In 2000 she produced a report that essentially said that the code of practice worked. There were a couple of incidents, very localized, but overall it worked in protecting the environment, and she recommended that it be used for any other future activity.