Evidence of meeting #30 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd 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.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I was really interested in your comment that the terrestrial system in the Atlantic provinces is essentially complete. Ms. Jans was talking about loss of terrain and how there's erosion happening. Are there any plans? I know that “expansion” is always a sensitive word in the Atlantic provinces because of expropriation being used to create some parks, but are there any strategies—willing buyer, willing seller, as an example—to deal with loss of habitat and with increasing footprint in terms of possibilities to improve the ecological integrity of the existing protected areas? Do you have any comments on that?
5:20 p.m.
Field Unit Superintendent Prince Edward Island, Parks Canada Agency
If I can comment regarding Prince Edward Island, yes, it is a small park on the coast, and one of the things identified through our current management planning exercise is the gap in a land acquisition policy. We've identified that as a priority. We need to get it in place because, since the fifties, we've just been reactive when an opportunity came forward.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
With that, going to what was just said about other mechanisms, I think this is something that needs to be looked at. Within the existing parks, there could be land acquisition programs for expansion that may need some guidance, but also, what are the other ones?
Sable Island, I think, is an example that had come on fairly quickly, as are things like the Rouge park. Are there opportunities to do that kind of near-urban park to add to the protected areas? It's outside of the existing systems plan, but it may be something for us to explore.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Protected Areas Establishment Branch, Parks Canada Agency
Yes, absolutely. In fact, you can look at things close by, such as the Thousand Islands National Park, which a number of years ago was doubled in size because of an opportunity that arose. Also, Nahanni was expanded sixfold.
Lands have been added to a number of national parks, and we realize that at a certain point we're going to have to revisit our systems plan. Please don't interpret my comment as “we're not looking at doing anything else”, but right now, in terms of representing regions, we have done the job there.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Is there a land acquisition policy right now that would guide this kind of thing, or could we be encouraging the minister and the agency to develop it to fill what is perhaps a void?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Protected Areas Establishment Branch, Parks Canada Agency
The 1994 Parks Canada policy does have policies with respect to the expansion of national parks. We have a policy of willing seller—
5:20 p.m.
Director, Protected Areas Establishment Branch, Parks Canada Agency
It's a policy, and I think we realize when we look at.... We have three national parks, including the Bruce Peninsula and the Grasslands, which still have not reached their full and final boundaries because we require land that has to be bought from private landowners. We also, as you've heard, need some land in the Gulf Islands.
There is not an ongoing source of funds for land acquisition, in part because of the costs. The opportunities sometimes don't come along for a while. The committee will have a chance when...I believe it's the Rouge bill that has something with respect to the new parks and sites account, so you'll have an opportunity to further discuss that.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
When we were in the Gulf Islands, we saw a great lost opportunity and—
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
—it's unfortunate to see that playing out across the country.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We'll end it here, but that speaks to the comment we heard that sometimes when the opportunity comes up, you have to move quickly. It sounds as though you need to have a reserve fund sitting there for these opportunities, because by the time government goes through the process to make that decision, somebody else has bought the land. It's not going to sit around for long.
Go ahead.
5:20 p.m.
Director, Protected Areas Establishment Branch, Parks Canada Agency
I'm sorry. I realize you're out of time, but is there a way for us to comment back to the committee on the Sable Island issue that was raised? We didn't have a chance to address that.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Yes. We are really grateful for the time that everybody has taken today and for the wisdom you've shared. If there's anything that came up, anything you heard or any questions that you thought were hanging, any reports or more information on specifics that you have, we welcome it. Maybe as you're going home today, you'll think of something that you wish you had shared. We are starting our drafting instructions at the very beginning of November, for two sessions, and then we are handing it over to our analysts for a report to be written, so we will need it fairly soon.
Go ahead, Mr. Aldag.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I don't know how long it could be, but if there's even a 30-second response on the Sable Island one, it would be—
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Okay. I promised that I wasn't going to go over today, but, please, if it's short, go ahead
5:25 p.m.
Director, Protected Areas Establishment Branch, Parks Canada Agency
Just to be clear, when the Sable Island National Park Reserve was created, the federal-provincial accord acts that Chris described were amended. One, it prohibited oil and gas exploration and development from the surface of Sable Island. Two, it established the 200-square-kilometre buffer zone around the island that prohibits oil and gas exploration and development out to one nautical mile—an unprecedented decision.
The Government of Nova Scotia insisted that as a condition of establishment, low-impact seismic activity could be permitted by the offshore petroleum board. In testimony before this committee, which considered that legislation, the Nova Scotia government made it clear that it was a deal breaker for establishing the park.
The important point they made was that first of all, the board confirmed to this committee that no work was imminent in terms of low-impact seismic activity. Second, they were going to be working with us, and we would be consulting the public on what “low-impact seismic activity” means, because “low impact” was not defined in the legislation.
They affirmed that the current seismic information for the region was adequate but maybe needed to be updated at some point, and they might need access to Sable Island to do that. They undertook such activity in the 1990s, and an ecologist who lives on the island confirmed that the approach had no impact.
As you've heard, the reason they need to do it is there's hydrocarbon development in the offshore beyond there. They need to make sure that when they are drilling, they have a very clear understanding of the seismic structure. If, as a result of being denied access to Sable Island to do some offshore work that would be permitted but has nothing to do with the park, they cannot undertake that seismic activity, there may be a gap in the information related to drilling in other places that could cause an issue with respect to drilling.
It was a condition of establishment. It was a well-founded argument in the view of governments, so to change it would require a renegotiation of the agreement with Nova Scotia and amendments not only to the Canada National Parks Act but to the accord acts.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Thank you very much.
Before I let everybody go, we've put on your table a draft press release that, as we had agreed on Tuesday, we were comfortable with. It was rewritten to reflect our comments. If nobody has had a chance to read it, it just says that we're looking for briefs.
We are thinking that we're just going to add one sentence to it which says, “The committee may choose to invite some of these groups or individuals to appear as witnesses.” It's just so the people don't think that there's never a chance. We're not saying that there's going to be a chance to come before the committee, but it leaves the door open if we should want to, based on the briefs. Okay?
Do you guys want time to judge this? If so, we'll do it next Tuesday. We were trying to get it out, but it's not a panic if you want to do it Tuesday. Do you want to wait?
