Environment Committee on June 17th, 2013

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

Again, I would just point out on this particular amendment that in the first component, part (a), the amendment is not in line with the 2010 Canada-Nova Scotia MOU in which Canada and Nova Scotia agreed not to recommend creation of a federal protected area that would have an adverse impact on their interest in management of offshore petroleum resources.

My apologies to the translators for speaking that fast.

Also, the amendment is not in line with terms of the 2011 Canada-Nova Scotia national parks establishment agreement.

Furthermore, this section is calling upon Parks Canada's expertise to advise the board about potential impacts about proposed work or activities on Sable Island. It's appropriate that the agency be the one identified in legislation to carry out the activity. The rationale is similar for the second part of the amendment with regard to the MOUs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I just want to come back and allow our analyst to respond to Ms. Leslie's point of order regarding the reference to “60 days”.

[David-Andrés Novoa, Procedural Clerk]

To clarify, in the French version the 60 days is already included in the bill. The line is not amended, and therefore there is no need to change it.

[An hon. member]

Oh, fascinating.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Is there further debate on amendment MAY-7?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're on amendment LIB-2.

Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

The amendment prevents the board from issuing a licence or permit if the advice it receives from Parks Canada indicates the proposed work would have a significant negative impact on the management of the surface of the island, unless this negative harm could be prevented by mitigation actions or remedial measures. In essence, it gives Parks Canada the final say on matters of science and ecological health or integrity of the island.

All my colleagues know my concerns. I am concerned that as it stands now, Parks Canada is merely required to consult and advise the board on matters affecting the park, but the board is not obliged to take that advice. This amendment would change that relationship in that it would oblige the board to take Parks Canada's advice. We are leaving the scientific decisions up to the scientists.

If the act were to have a significant negative impact on the surface of the island, which we can all agree would be very bad, the amendment would invite the applicant to take steps to mitigate the negative consequences. In this way I think it's a reasonable ask. We recognize the unique circumstances of Sable Island and we are trying to work with them as best we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Is there any further debate on amendment LIB-2?

Ms. Rempel.

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

Mr. Chair, the proposed amendment directs that the board shall not issue an authorization if the advice Parks Canada provides indicates that the proposed activity would have a significant negative impact on the national park reserve.

I recommend that we not support the proposed amendment, as it constricts the ability of the board to act on the best advice should other experts disagree with Parks Canada.

In the case of receiving conflicting expert advice on how a proposal to carry out low-impact exploration work on Sable Island would occur, the amendment would presuppose that Parks Canada's view is the only view that would be correct and the only view that should be considered.

The amendment also differs from the terms of the 2011 Canada-Nova Scotia national parks establishment agreement, and the amendment would require support from the province as well as a similar amendment to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you for the debate on amendment LIB-2.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 7 agreed to)

(On clause 8)

With respect to amendment MAY-8, there's a typo. It should say “be amended by deleting lines 26 to 28 on page 5”. This amendment is identical to amendment NDP-2, so our action on this one will apply to amendment NDP-2.

Is there debate on amendment MAY-8?

Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, once again, I understand the issue of needing mirror legislation, but we are legislators around this table. If we legislate, then others will follow. I think this motion is in the best interest of Sable Island, and I hope that my colleagues will consider that when deciding how to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'm sure they'll listen.

We're going to proceed now to Ms. Rempel, and then Mr. Woodworth.

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

I actually believe, Mr. Chair, that this amendment is poorly structured because by striking out the last line, the proposal deletes reference to allowing the emergency evacuation of offshore workers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I pointed out that line 29 should not be in; it should be line 28.

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

We are legislators here; however, we have heard from witnesses that it is important to respect the legislation passed by our colleagues in the Nova Scotia legislature. I would recommend not supporting the amendment because of that, and also that we follow through with appropriate discussions as part of the parks management planned development.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Thank you.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In response to questions that I asked this evening, the witness who was representing the board gave a fairly good description of some of the kinds of geochemical, magnetic and gravity explorations that would be considered under this subparagraph of petroleum exploration activities. He described very well the extremely negligible impact that they would have. In my view, it would be acting completely arbitrarily to delete the subparagraph that allows such negligibly impactful activities to occur.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Is there further debate?

Ms. Rempel.

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

I want to emphasize that we have heard from witnesses both on Thursday and today that defining this particular term as well as the framework in which it would be operating is possible through other mechanisms. It should be approached that way rather than by seeking to amend mirror legislation.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Amendment NDP-2 may not be moved as it is identical to MAY-8.

Amendment LIB-3 has been withdrawn.

On amendment LIB-4 I have a ruling, but go ahead Ms. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Do you want me to go ahead?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

If you'd like.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, if you have a ruling which suggests that debate is not required, I would suggest you should give it first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'm at the will of the committee. The advice we're given is that debate should be allowed even though amendment is inadmissible in terms of voting.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It would require that before the memorandum of understanding is concluded between Parks Canada and the board, the Minister of the Environment would table the proposed draft to Parliament and the House of Commons would refer the MOU to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and that the environment committee would study the proposed memo and report its finding to the House.

Also, the amendment asks that the Minister of the Environment take into account any report of the committee. If the memo does not incorporate a recommendation of the committee, the minister shall explain to the House the reasons for not incorporating it.

I think this was because there's been a lot of talk at this committee of what happens next, of what is the next stage with Sable Island.

I know my colleagues and I discussed an MOU between the board and Parks Canada, or a directive; I guess I'm suggesting a bit of both. This would require that the environment committee study the MOU between Parks Canada and the board before it is included, not after it has been negotiated and it is too late for input. As we've said many times, it's a very special park.