Environment Committee on June 13th, 2013

[Alan Latourelle]

In summary, I think we will define the visitor experience with Canadians, for Canadians, through the consultation process. At this point, we are receiving visitors but in very small numbers. We have to look at the capacity, from an ecological perspective, and the nature of those experiences. This is a national park, and I want to be clear on that, and the purpose of a national park is also for Canadians to experience it. We want to do it responsibly. I can assure you we're going to show the same leadership that we have shown, for example, in Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you very much.

We'll move to the last question from Ms. Rempel, for five minutes.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Very quickly, the intent of this legislation is not to allow for exploration for minerals, energy, whatever, in other national parks. Is that correct?

[Alan Latourelle]

That is correct. It doesn't at all affect the National Parks Act.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

There is no intent here that we're asking to approve seismic activity. That's not the purpose of this bill. We're actually trying to reduce the environmental impact of potential activities on this island and give it a greater level of environmental protection. Is that correct?

[Alan Latourelle]

That is correct. We're trying to define specifically and reduce essentially the type of low-exploration activities on the island.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

In your opinion, would the greater ENGO community and first nations people in the province of Nova Scotia agree with those characterizations?

[Alan Latourelle]

Yes—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I guess I just wanted to echo some of my colleagues' comments that this—

[Alan Latourelle]

—in general terms. I just want to be clear. For example, for the Province of Nova Scotia, for sure, because they have signed.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Great.

On that note, since I've got my point out, I'd like to give Ms. Duncan the last word on this.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thanks, Ms. Rempel.

I just want to be clear. I understand the legislative protection. I want to be clear: we need to meet an ethical and moral obligation, and that's why I'm concerned about the precedent.

When B.C. wanted some logging in Gwaii Haanas, the NGOs and the federal government did say no.

My last question. We've talked about how under Bill S-15 the Parks Canada role seems relegated to merely consulting CNSOPB on its environmental recommendations. Can you tell me why this is so? What is preventing Parks Canada from being the last stop when it comes to the ecological health of the park? What happens in and around it?

[Alan Latourelle]

I want to be clear that the Canada National Parks Act does not allow exploration activities. Any changes for future national parks would require an amendment to that act in Parliament, so I want to be clear on that. That is where we sit on this issue.

I'll turn to Kevin for the second component.

[Kevin McNamee]

I'm sorry, I missed the first part of the second component.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

What's preventing Parks Canada from being the last stop when it comes to the ecological health of the park? This is what I don't understand.

[Kevin McNamee]

If I understand your question, it pertains to seismic, and the fact that we make recommendations....

I'm sorry.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

No.

[Alan Latourelle]

Maybe I can answer. The act is clear that in terms of the Sable Island National Park Reserve the Canada National Parks Act will apply, and under the Canada National Parks Act the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity is the first priority.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Yes, but it's regarding CNSOPB. They have to consult you, but they don't have to take the recommendations. What's preventing that?

[Kevin McNamee]

In 1988 the Government of Canada, through Parliament, and the Government of Nova Scotia, through its legislature, passed the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. In the federal act, section 4 was clear that this act takes precedence over other acts that apply to that region, and the Canada National Parks Act will be one of those acts in that region, so that act overrides the Canada National Parks Act, but we still maintain our authority to manage it as a national park. We are amending the accord act to put in place a drilling ban because it overrides, so you amend the act it overrides to put in place the legislative ban on drilling and to limit those activities that have been spelled out, including seismic, to low-impact.

When we started our negotiations with the Government of Nova Scotia, the two governments signed an MOU that very clearly stated that whatever decision was made with respect to how the island was going to be protected, they did not want to see adverse impact on the oil industry, and this provision under seismic was part of that understanding. But it goes back to section 4 of the accord act. That is the fundamental piece.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you for your answer.

I thank all our committee members and our witnesses for being with us today. We look forward to further discussion on this in the next meeting on Monday evening.

The meeting is adjourned.