Thank you for this opportunity. My presentation will be under five minutes.
The Ecology Action Centre has been actively involved in protecting Sable Island for over a decade. We've been a member of the government-led Sable Island stakeholder advisory committee for many years. We held our first event in 2004, in association with Zoe Lucas and the Sable Island Green Horse Society. Every year since we have held an annual update that attracts over 300 people, a testament to the ongoing interest in the island and its protection.
We first became involved because there was good chance the federal government would close the Sable Island station. The Ecology Action Centre, along with many other groups and citizens, strongly made the case that the island required a year-round human presence. Luckily and eventually the federal government agreed and committed to maintaining a year-round human presence on the island.
The Ecology Action Centre, along with the Green Horse Society and CPAWS, was supportive of Sable Island becoming a national park when first proposed in 2010. We have maintained that support over the last three years.
Despite significant public concern that by making Sable Island a national park Canadians might love it to death through increased visitation and supporting infrastructure, the EAC has seen the designation as the best possible outcome for the island.
We supported park designation for a number of reasons, including the expectation that the designation would result in the exclusion of oil and gas activities from the island.
In the summer of 2011, the EAC participated in Parks Canada's consultation on the island as a national park. We made the following comment regarding oil and gas activity: The EAC opposes oil and gas activities on Sable Island including seismic. We would encourage licence holders to relinquish any existing licences on Sable Island. In addition, oil and gas activities should be kept as far away as possible from Sable Island both to reduce the impacts of pollution on the Island and to protect the integrity of the visitor experience. The federal and provincial government should expand the current 1 nautical mile exclusion zone and put it into law. Parks Canada should not make any arrangement regarding sub-surface petroleum rights for Sable Island which would set a bad precedent for other national parks in Canada.
Consequently, we are disappointed to see that with this legislation, drilling under the island is still permitted, the exclusion zone has not been expanded, and—we hadn't expected this—exploration is allowed on the island.
There are effectively no new protections for Sable Island from oil and gas activity. We appreciate that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board guidelines around surface drilling and the one nautical mile exclusion zone are now being enshrined in legislation. However, in practice most of us realize that it would be highly unlikely for any oil company to propose drilling on Sable itself, or in the surf and shallow water immediately adjacent to the island, or to do high-impact seismic on the island. Because of the shape of the island, which is long and narrow like a banana, a drill rig one nautical mile from the island will feel like it's on top of the island.
In terms of impacts, our main concerns are flaring, light and noise, produced water, and small spills. If there is a large spill, it probably won't matter whether the rig is one or five nautical miles away. We're happy to elaborate on these concerns.
We are opposed to the proposed amendments in the current form because of the ecological risk to the island and the precedent they set for other national parks, if not in legislation, in the public's mind.
We are also worried that this decision erodes the public's confidence in Nova Scotia's and the federal government's resolve to stand up for Sable Island on other matters, such as tourism. We note that both governments have received considerable praise for their decision to protect the island. At EAC we were happy to add our voices to that praise.
We also like to think that the government is also willing to take tough decisions on behalf of the island. We have followed some of the deliberations in Parliament. We are distressed that MPs and senators are in a position of having to choose between a park that permits oil and gas activities in its boundaries or delaying the establishment of a national park. It is an unfortunate choice, and one which we think could have been avoided.
There is a tremendous amount of goodwill within government and industry when it comes to Sable Island. Of course, the level of public interest and support for the island never ceases to amaze.
Because we weren't part of the discussions, we can only surmise, but we feel that both the federal and provincial governments missed an opportunity to bring all the players together to hammer out a deal that puts the best interests of the island first.
As far as we know, the oil companies were never explicitly asked not to do low-impact seismic on the island, or not to do directional drilling under the island. They agreed to what they were asked to do by the government.
If for whatever reason there is an opportunity to improve on this legislation, we would encourage that there be frank and inclusive discussions about how to meet the interests of the licence holders, while keeping oil and gas activities out of the park.
Thank you for your time and your work to protect Sable Island.