Debates of May 31st, 2013

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1306

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

With regard to the crisis in Syria: (a) what criteria does the government use to determine (i) whether to intervene, (ii) when to intervene, (iii) the nature and scope of any intervention; (b) who makes the determination in (a) and how; (c) what sources does the government rely upon in determining (a); (d) what legal obligations are considered with respect to (a) and in what ways does the Responsibility to Protect doctrine factor into decision making under (a); (e) in what ways has the government evaluated its obligations under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine with respect to Syria; (f) when were such evaluations done, by whom, and with what outcome; (g) have the criteria by which the government determines its official policy towards the crisis in Syria changed since 2012; (h) when the Minister of Foreign Affairs publicly expressed his support for an indictment of Bashar al-Assad by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2012, was this the position of the government and does it remain the position of the government that al-Assad ought to be indicted by the ICC; (j) with respect to Canada’s decision not to sign on to the request of 57 countries made in January, 2013, to ask the Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC, did Canada support this request; (k) with respect to (j), when, why, how, and by whom were the determinations made in this regard, and when was Canada approached to join in this endeavor and by what means; (l) what criteria were applied in determining whether to support this effort; (m) are there any specific policies or directives within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade that guide decision-making with regard to Canadian intervention in situations of humanitarian crisis; (n) was the decision not to sign the Swiss-led letter asking the United Nations Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the ICC made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs; (o) were any other officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade involved in the decision-making process to determine whether to support the Swiss-led international request letter; (p) were any other cabinet officials involved in the decision-making process to determine whether to support the Swiss-led international request letter; (q) was the government made aware of this specific international initiative in advance of the official lodging of the request with the United Nations on January 14, 2013, and (i) if so, how was the government made aware of this initiative, (ii) when was the government made aware of this initiative; (r) did the decision-making process to determine whether to support the Swiss-led international request letter include (i) consultations with the Minister’s counterparts from any other countries, (ii) consultations with the Minister’s counterparts in any of the 56 countries that ultimately supported the Swiss-led initiative, (iii) consultations with any international or intergovernmental organizations; (s) did the government make submissions promoting a specific policy approach with regard to the Swiss-led initiative to (i) the governments of any other countries, (ii) the governments of any of the 50-plus countries that ultimately supported the Swiss-led initiative, (iii) any international or intergovernmental organizations; (t) what steps is the government taking to bring al-Assad before the ICC; (u) has Canada raised al-Assad’s conduct as an issue before the Security Council; (v) what legal remedies has the government invoked with respect to addressing the situation in Syria; (w) what legal remedies has the government invoked with respect to al-Assad in particular; and (x) does the government support an International Criminal Tribunal for Syria?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1307

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

With regard to Canada's submission under the Convention on the Law of the Sea: (a) what is the precise extent that will be included in the claim and what scientific research supports that claim; (b) does the government anticipate that Canada's submission will overlap with claims of other nations, (i) if so, has Canada begun consultation with other nations with which its submission may overlap, (ii) which countries has Canada consulted, (iii) what were the dates of those consultations, (iv) what briefings were prepared for those consultations, (v) what briefings were prepared for the Minister responsible after the consultations; (c) which department is the lead agency on Canada’s submission and which other departments are involved; (d) who are the external researchers and institutions involved in Canada’s submission; (e) how much money has been allocated for Canada’s submission and how much of that money has been spent to date; and (f) regarding any Requests for Proposals for research in support of Canada’s submission, (i) what was the process, (ii) what are the milestones, (iii) what reporting has been done so far, (iv) what oversight is in place?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1308

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

With regard to government funding, what is the total amount of government funding allocated within the constituency of Vancouver East during the fiscal year 2012-2013, broken down by: (a) department or agency; and (b) for each body mentioned in (a), by initiative or project?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1309

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

With regard to the amalgamation of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) into the department of Foreign Affairs and International Affairs (DFAIT): (a) what is the timeline for the amalgamation; (b) which officials within CIDA, DFAIT and other government Ministries, including the Privy Council Office, will be in charge of the amalgamation; (c) what are the expected job losses among CIDA staff and in which divisions; (d) what changes will be made at the senior management level, including CIDA president; (e) will there be a deputy minister for development; (f) will employees be re-located; (g) will the respective unions be consulted; (h) will there be further cuts to funding for development programmes for the purposes of poverty reduction; (i) will CIDA’s countries of focus be changing; and (j) will the promised legislation ensure that Official Development Assistance will continue to be provided only if it (i) contributes to poverty reduction, (ii) takes into account the perspectives of the poor, (iii) is consistent with an international human rights perspective?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1310

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

With regard to the Partnership with Canadians program at the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), for each year from 2006 to 2010: (a) how many proposals were received, broken down by year and type of call for proposal, if applicable; and (b) how many proposals were approved, broken down by (i) year, (ii) partner, (iii) CIDA priority theme or cross cutting theme, (iv) total dollar amount contributed by CIDA, (v) total dollar amount contributed by partner, (vi) description of project, (vii) recipient country, (viii) length of days of approval, (ix) length of project, (x) grant or contribution?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker, Mr. Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-60—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise the House an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Bill S-2—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to express my support for Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada's national parks act.

In 2011, the Government of Canada made a commitment in its Speech from the Throne to create significant new protected areas. The bill before us would deliver on that commitment by amending the Canada National Parks Act to protect Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada as Canada's 43rd national park.

This initiative has garnered a high level of support in Nova Scotia, including among the Mi'kmaq. In fact, we are establishing Sable Island as a national park reserve out of respect for the ongoing negotiations under the Made-in-Nova-Scotia Process. A national park reserve enjoys the same protections that a national park does while respecting assertions of first nations rights.

For many Nova Scotians, Sable Island is a mystical but real far-off place. A unique sandbar island, it is 42 kilometres long and 1.3 kilometres across at its widest point. It is home to some 190 plant species, including 20 that have restricted distribution elsewhere. It is perhaps best known for its herd of over 500 wild horses, one of the few herds in the world that remains entirely unmanaged. It was the future of those very horses that sparked the first efforts to conserve Sable Island that today culminates in this legislation.

In reaction to plans in 1960 to remove the wild horses from Sable Island, schoolchildren from across Canada raised petitions, and petitioned the House of Commons. Canada came to the defence of those schoolchildren and the horses on Sable Island. In 1961, the government of the day, the government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, passed regulations protecting the horses and protecting the seeds for the long-term protection of this unique and fabled landscape.

Now, 50 years later, this chamber can help complete the work started by hundreds of schoolchildren decades ago by passing legislation to permanently protect Sable Island as part of Canada's world-class national parks system.

There have been 350 shipwrecks recorded on Sable Island and in the vicinity of Sable Island, earning it the title of the graveyard of the Atlantic. In the past, life-saving stations, lighthouses and shelters for shipwrecked sailors were established, and today the island is used for scientific research and monitoring activities such as weather forecasting and wildlife research.

I stand proudly to debate Bill S-15 today because I am probably one of the few parliamentarians in this chamber who has ever had the pleasure of setting foot on Sable Island. I have been to Sable Island probably 25 or 30 times when I worked in the offshore. We used to fly to the rig in a fixed-wing airplane that took the mail to Sable Island, land on the beach, get transferred over to the helipad and then transfer to the rig from there. I can speak with some authority to the uniqueness of Sable Island, of the shipwrecks that are on it, of the horses that are there. Those horses are very much believed to be descendants of the original horses that were taken during the expulsion of the Acadians.

During the expulsion of the Acadians in 1755, horses and cattle and pigs were gathered up and put on Sable Island. The pigs quickly destroyed the trees that were still on the island at that time and they were later butchered and taken off. The cattle were used to provision the fishing fleet and the British navy and the horses themselves. It is believed that it is the descendants of those horses that are the Sable Island horses of today. I often hear people talking about Sable Island ponies, but I can tell members from experience, that there are no Sable Island ponies. These are horses in their own right, probably the true and earliest Canadian horse.

Sable Island has long inspired those touched by the island's history and beauty. George Patterson penned the first formal history of the island in 1894. Nova Scotia author Thomas Haliburton inspired by the loss of the brigFrancis in 1798 wrote “The Sable Island Ghost” in 1802. His fictional account of a ghostly woman raised support for the construction of a rescue site on the island. Among the first photographic expeditions to Sable Island was Alexander Graham Bell, who was part of an 1898 National Geographic visit. The late, great Stompin' Tom Connors recorded his song Sable Island in 1970.

Sable Island is located in one of the largest offshore hydrocarbon basins in North America. The governments of Canada and Nova Scotia have agreed to prohibit drilling and to limit other petroleum-related activities on the island out to one nautical mile from the island. Industry will still be able to access Sable Island to monitor several abandoned wellheads from the 1970s and to undertake non-intrusive exploration work if authorized by the Offshore Petroleum Board in consultation, of course, with Parks Canada.

As a former worker in the offshore petroleum industry, I am pleased to confirm that in case of emergency, workers will be able to seek shelter and safe harbour on Sable Island should they be taken off platforms due to emergency conditions. Parts of the bill would amend the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to this effect.

If members will bear with me, I will speak a bit more personally on that subject. Having worked in the offshore industry for over eight years, six and a half of them as a driller, I went through many rig abandonments. A rig had to be abandoned on a day in the early 1980s. Most of the personnel were sent to Sable Island. There were 12 of us who were deemed as necessary personnel and had to stay on board.

The lads who were sent to Sable Island had quite a time. They came back with stories of some of the existing houses still on the island half full of shifting sands. There were a lot of great stories and pictures. Of course, they spent about a day and a half altogether on the island. In those days, there were several people in the weather station and it was just before Christmas. Along with our personnel were the personnel from a Yugoslavian freighter that was in danger of taking the legs out from the rig. All of those sailors, thanks to the search and rescue team from Greenwood, Nova Scotia, and Charlottetown, were rescued and harboured safely on the island.

Although this is a national park, it is extremely important that in cases of emergency, the facilities on Sable Island are able to harbour individuals, whether they are on an offshore platform or fishing boats that are medevaced, or whatever the reason. We can do that in the parameters of the national parks system. There is already a helipad there. It does not have to be added. There are already some personnel on Sable Island. This could be a win-win situation, where industry and Parks Canada can work together for the benefit of all.

Holders of exploration licences that include parts of Sable Island have contributed to the historic consensus to protect this remarkable island by amending their licences to prevent drilling on the island and within the buffer zone of one nautical mile. I am sure that hon. members will join me in thanking ExxonMobil Canada Properties and other licence holders for their commitment to helping protect this remarkable island as a national park reserve.

Among the steps to create a national park reserve on Sable Island, administration of the island will be formally transferred from the Canadian Coast Guard to Parks Canada. With the collaboration of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, this bill would also amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, to remove reference to Sable Island. The Sable Island regulations would be revoked, and instead the island would be subject to the regulatory regime under the Canada National Parks Act.

At this time, I would like to thank and congratulate the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for their work in helping create a national park reserve on Sable Island. The Government of Canada is proud to table this bill to give Sable Island the highest level of environmental protection in the country for the enjoyment, appreciation and benefit of current and future generations of Canadians.

Turning now to other aspects of Bill S-15, including important matters related to two of Canada's oldest national parks, Yoho National Park and Jasper National Park, I will briefly describe the other proposed amendments to the Canada National Parks Act made in the second part of the bill.

The bill before us would modify the French version of subsection 4(1) of the Canada National Parks Act to align the French version with the English version. It would also add a new subclause, subclause 4(1.1), that states for greater certainty that nothing in section 4 limits the ability of the minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency to charge fees in national parks under either sections 23 or 24 of the Parks Canada Agency Act. These changes address concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.

The provisions affecting Yoho National Park make minor changes to the description of the commercial zones for the community of Field, British Columbia, located within Yoho National Park of Canada. These zoning modifications are well within the legislative commercial growth limit for Field, they reflect public consultations carried out and they respond to concerns for business operations and residents of the community. They are important to the economic viability of the community of Field, British Columbia.

The proposed amendments that would affect Jasper National Park relate to the ski area at Marmot Basin within the boundaries of the park. The operator wishes to improve the ski experience in order to remain competitive with other new and expanded ski operations in the region and to stay financially viable. The operator has presented Parks Canada with an opportunity to achieve a significant environmental gain in the process.

Development of ski areas within a national park is strictly controlled by legislation, by ski area guidelines, by site-specific guidelines and by leases and licences of occupation. Changes to the size and configuration of the ski area boundaries require an amendment to the Canada National Parks Act. The growth limits in the site guidelines for the Marmot Basin ski area are based on a design capacity of 6,500 skiers per day, but the existing commercial space can serve less than 3,000 skiers. There is a need for additional facilities and services, and they must be developed in a strategic manner to achieve a better ski experience and respect conservation imperatives. The ski area management guidelines would allow ski areas to add new ski terrain only through an exchange that results in substantial environmental gain to the ecological integrity of the national park.

This is what is proposed in the bill before us. Marmot Basin ski area would remove from its lease 118 hectares of ecologically sensitive land in the Whistlers Creek valley. The area is an important habitat for woodland caribou, which is listed under the Species at Risk Act, as well as habitat for sensitive species such as the grizzly bear, wolverine and lynx. In exchange, the ski area would receive 60 hectares of comparatively less environmentally sensitive habitat for the new ski trails and the beginner runs. This is a win-win situation for the ski hill and for Jasper National Park, resulting in a net increase of 56 hectares of wilderness area to the park and the protection of future development of 118 hectares of prime woodland and caribou habitat.

The creation of Sable Island National Park Reserve of Canada, which is near and dear to my heart, would build on the Government of Canada's impressive achievements in protecting our natural and cultural history.

In conclusion, I hope hon. members will join with me in supporting this bill. This work started more than 50 years ago. By protecting Sable Island today as a national park reserve under the Canada National Parks Act, we can expect an important addition; even though it is an island and obviously Tertiary, the water surrounding Sable Island National Park in the nautical mile buffer zone is a very important addition.

For those members who have never had an opportunity to visit Sable Island, I urge them to do so. It is absolutely a unique place on the east coast of Canada, and the island continues to shift. It is continually in movement. We flew out and landed on Sable Island on one of the trips to the oil rig, and there was a vessel approximately 130 to 140 feet long, a steel ship, sitting upright on the bar of Sable Island. This was a vessel that had been wrecked on Sable Island back in the 1950s. I cannot say if there was any loss of life, but the vessel is still out there today. Over the period of the fall and before Christmas, that vessel, of which the spar probably would have been 60 feet off of the sands of Sable Island, was again totally covered in sand and one would not know if one had not seen it oneself that the vessel had been totally out of the sand and open on the island.

That is the type of terrain there. It is an amazing addition to the Canada National Parks Act and I urge all hon. members to support this legislation. This is a great piece of legislation.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. In fact, I agree with a lot of what he said. Sable Island is a magnificent place that must be preserved and given national park designation. We agree on that.

The thing I am not so sure I understood from my colleague's speech is that he seems to fully support the bill. I wonder whether he thinks there is cause to propose some amendments to this bill.

I could add a second part to my question. I wonder about the expression “low-impact development”. I am not sure if my colleague knows exactly what is meant by “low-impact”, what that implies and what this protects us from.

I think that if we do not fully understand this expression, then we cannot really fully support this bill. Can the hon. member tell me what he thinks about that?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for both of those very important questions. The answers deserve to be given in this House. Her first question was whether or not I would support the bill without amendments. I absolutely would support the bill without amendments. That does not mean there cannot be amendments made that possibly could support the bill, but as I understand the bill right now, it is the proper bill for both Sable Island and for the other two national parks that were mentioned, Yoho National Park and Jasper National Park.

The second question was on low-impact development. As I said in my remarks, low-impact development will only result when there is a land swap, so if a commercial entity that is operating, for instance, a ski hill in a national park needs to expand and it can expand in an area of that park that is not ecologically sensitive, then it has to actually swap land and property that increases the size of the park, and that land has to be ecologically sensitive.

In the case of the ski hill that I mentioned, that is exactly what it has done. It will be increasing the size of the park and adding ecologically sensitive land to it in exchange for the non-ecologically sensitive land that will allow for the expansion of the ski hill.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we are going to be debating the bill today and possibly agreeing to send it to committee. Along the lines of the questions from the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, I want to make sure government is going to be open to amendments. Based on the past history of the government, being a parliamentary secretary, the member knows very well that there have not been any amendments and the government has not been open to any amendments on bills. I am not saying there are going to be any amendments, but we are going to be listening to witnesses at committee because this is going to be a very delicate type of bill to pass, making sure all parties are happy with the bill we would be passing.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that all governments are open to amendments to legislation, if those amendments actually improve that piece of legislation. I have seen a lot of bills by other governments and by our own government come to this place, and often there is some tweaking that is required of them. However, in this entire piece of legislation, we have a unique partnership between the Province of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada. There is a recognition of aboriginal rights and the importance of allowing those aboriginal claims to be settled before this would actually become a national park and part of the national parks system of Canada.

It recognizes the fact that there are a number of existing wellheads on Sable Island now that will require monitoring by Mobil Oil or the other companies that have drilled wells on that island. It recognizes the fact that this is an important hydrocarbon basin. When I worked in the offshore, we drilled a directional well right under Sable Island, so there is no question that there can be industry there without hurting the landscape on Sable Island. There is a great partnership between—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary will know there is a lot of interest in his remarks, so we need to allow some time.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in this House today would agree that this legislation is a positive step in the right direction.

I wish my colleague to comment on two things. First, he spoke very briefly about the partnership the bill includes. I believe it is already passed almost in mirror form in the Nova Scotia Legislature.

Would he talk about what the island means to the local community and the partnership to take it to this place? Would he also speak to the fact that committee study is a very proper and good tool to look at legislation, even as good as this, and that certainly he would support a rigorous study at committee, should the bill be supported by all parties to get it to committee in the near future?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the second question first. I absolutely agree. Rigorous committee study is important to any piece of legislation. Whether that legislation is by the previous government or our government, it is important to make sure the legislation is crafted properly. Quite frankly, often we do find some mistakes in legislation, and amendments need to be made to correct those.

The partnership, which I was speaking to earlier, is extremely important. There are some changes made to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to recognize the difference of a national park reserve.

There will be an ongoing partnership now with the Province of Nova Scotia and with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia, and this bill quite frankly recognizes the importance, not just of partnerships but of collaboration and working for the benefit of all.