Debates of May 31st, 2013

Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks Act

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the changes to Jasper National Park to accommodate the Marmot Basin ski hill.

The government has taken it upon itself to make major changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and now many projects will not be assessed. Also, it is extremely difficult for anybody claiming to be directly impacted—for example, living on the land—to intervene.

I am wondering if the hon. member can give reassurance that there would be thorough environmental impact assessment as the ski hill moves to develop these lands that are exchanged, and can he give assurance that all interested, concerned parties would be included, including independent scientists?

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of the hon. member when she said there are projects that will not go through an environmental assessment. All projects have environmental assessment.

In direct answer to her question about the Marmot Basin ski area site guidelines for development and use, those site guidelines for development and use were approved by Parks Canada in 2008. They were prepared in collaboration with Marmot Basin, including a comprehensive public participation program and completion of a strategic environmental assessment, the very environmental assessment the hon. member asked about.

A long-range plan for the Marmot Basin ski area in Jasper National Park of Canada is being developed. There will be opportunities for public involvement in the long-range planning process, and at the end of the process, the long-range plan will be submitted to the Minister of the Environment for approval.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to disappoint the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, but I could not support the bill as written. It would undercut the fundamental principles of the integrity of the national parks system.

When we created Cape Breton Highlands National Park in 1936, the forest licences did not remain. When we created Gwaii Haanas National Park in 1987, the forest licences did not remain.

The idea that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board would still have the ability to approve petroleum activities in and around a national park is deeply disturbing.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the hon. member is incorrect. It is not in and around; it is around. That is the first thing.

There are already several wellheads on Sable Island. They are monitored on a regular basis. They need to be continually monitored on a regular basis to make sure that the cement plugs that have been set in those wells continue to maintain their integrity and that there is no gas or oil leakage that affects the island in any way.

Having worked in the oil industry off Sable Island, I can say there were a few wellheads in that nautical mile range from Sable Island, which we removed when we were out there. Even though the rig I was on did not drill those wells, we went down, cut those wells off and finished them off under the water, to maintain the integrity of the land around Sable Island.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I wish to seek unanimous consent to split my spot.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Does the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona have the unanimous consent of the House to share her time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Agreed and so ordered. The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

It is my pleasure to speak to this bill. The designation of Sable Island as a full national park has been long in coming and is welcomed by many quarters. Nonetheless, there have been a number of outstanding issues. It appears that all the parties have come together to a certain extent to resolve those matters. However, there have been discussions in the House about the comments made by the parliamentary secretary. There may still be a need for some discussion at committee. What our party certainly does not want to do in any way is slow down or stop the full designation of Sable Island as a national park.

Sable Island is a unique area. It is a sandbar island, off the coast of Nova Scotia, over 40 kilometres long and only 1.3 kilometres wide at its widest point. It is home to 190 plant species, including 20 that have restricted distribution and are not found elsewhere, and a remarkable herd of 450 wild horses.

It was that herd of horses that first brought the effort to conserve the island and protect their habitat. However, since that time, there have been many more revelations about the importance, significance and uniqueness of this island. Therefore, it is good news that all parties have come together to try to designate and set aside this area for future prosperity.

To that end, this act declares Sable Island national park reserve a full national park. That means it shifts to having full protection. However, as some of the members have indicated in the House, there are some questions about the extent of that full protection.

It is my understanding that conditions put on other parks, such as Gwaii Hanaas, Nahanni and so forth, are being imposed on Sable Island national park reserve, or would be imposed when it is designated. That includes allowing for first nation harvest rights and so forth.

There are additional problems, which I am quite familiar with from when I was the assistant deputy of natural resources in the Yukon. That was during the time when the majority of the first nation final agreements were being negotiated and included dealing with the issue of pre-existing mineral rights and interests on claimed lands. This legislation attempts to deal with those potentially conflicting rights and interests and also the jurisdiction and power of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act.

I will not go into the details of those provisions. They would be discussed at committee should the bill be voted to go to committee. However, one issue that needs to be clarified and resolved is the extent to which pre-existing rights would be honoured.

It is my understanding that in designating the park, the decision was made to remove any right to actually extract petroleum resources on Sable Island or within a perimeter of, I believe, one mile offshore. The problem is that there is considerable offshore oil activity in the vicinity and the potential for direct or indirect drilling.

A question was raised by one of my colleagues about the term “low impact”. The law would allow for certain low-impact activities to occur. Unfortunately, the legislation does not specify what those are. I am sure that will be a matter for discussion and debate at committee. I look forward to the presentations by other members on that aspect.

It also amends the Canada Shipping Act, including the transfer of jurisdiction from the Coast Guard to Parks Canada.

One of the outstanding issues, which I look forward to being fully addressed, is that the preamble of the bill designating Sable Island national park reserve refers to Mi'kmaq asserted rights and title. The problem is that a preamble is not legally binding. It may well be that they may want to pursue some kind of substantive provision within the act and associated regulations and so forth to clarify that those rights are recognized. That is important, because there have been previous determinations by the Federal Court that previously, the government erred in law by making decisions on the protection of habitat of species without giving due consideration to aboriginal rights and title.

I note that the chief of the Paq'tnkek first nation, which is one of the Mi'kmaq nations, advises that they have not been consulted. Perhaps that has happened since he stated that. They are calling for more in-depth archeological studies on the island connected to their previous occupation. I am hopeful that they may be brought forward to committee.

The Conservatives initially wanted to make the designation subject to all other federal laws. This was a rather reprehensible proposal, because all other national parks have said the opposite, which is that the National Parks Act would supersede all other laws, which is obviously important when designating an area for protection. My understanding is that they have withdrawn from that suggestion. I look forward to hearing clarification on that.

Finally, I would like to speak to the parts of the bill that deal with changes to Jasper National Park. As the parliamentary secretary has said, the bill deals with an exchange of properties to allow for the Marmot Basin ski project to potentially develop in the future. Presumably there was some kind of evaluation and assessment in this exchange and Marmot ski development would give up areas that are more ecologically sensitive for ones that are less ecologically sensitive.

I cannot speak to that in detail. I am not sure who was engaged in that review. I do not know if it was an open review. I look forward to more detail being provided on that in committee. It is absolutely critical, because under the National Parks Act, the minister is obligated to give priority to ecological integrity in making any decisions about the management of the parks.

That is potentially a matter that might come forward. My understanding is that nobody has specifically objected to the switch of the lands, but there are ongoing concerns, because a number of threatened species are potentially at risk.

Three or four herds of caribou in Jasper National Park are close to extirpation. Those are the last remaining herds that have any level of protection in my province. Essentially, for all the eastern slope herds, the provincial government has declared, “let them be extirpated”. All the herds in northern Alberta where the oil sands developments are occurring are also at risk.

There will be a lot of attention to the commitment by the federal government to step up to the plate and ensure that these last remnants of the caribou herds get full protection.

Again, as I mentioned, a previous court case was brought by a number of Alberta first nations because of the federal government's failure to actually directly consult and consider any impacts on first nation rights and title in deciding whether to protect the critical habitat of the woodland caribou. The court ruled that the minister had erred in law by determining that he did not have to consult and consider those rights. The Federal Court thoroughly chastised the minister for this erring in law, and this matter has continued to spin round and round.

According to National Park policy, the ski operators must demonstrate a substantial environmental gain from their plans. What people interested in the protection of this area will be watching for under the new regime of the Canadian Environment Assessment Act is whether there will be a thorough environmental assessment of any plans to expand in this area they will be allowed to expand into. Will Canadians who are concerned and dedicated to the protection of the species in that area be allowed to fully participate?

The government has been moving to try to limit participation by Canadians. I would think this would be a good chance to show and exercise good will and be forthright and say that it intends to ensure a full environmental assessment and full participation by people, even if it does not deem them to be directly impacted.

I would just like to close with some words of Alison Woodley, director of conservation for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. She said:

Parks Canada policy requires that the operator demonstrate that there will be a substantial environmental gain from the overall plan. In our view, it is highly unlikely that there will be a substantial environmental gain achieved through a Marmot Basin ski area expansion and that the potential new development could cause harm to park wildlife, including woodland caribou, which have dropped to critically low numbers in the park and are at risk of disappearing.

There is good will on the part of all parties, but there are still significant questions remaining. I think the ball is in the court of the government to step forward in both of these matters and assure the public and those concerned that those matters will be addressed and that they will protect the integrity of our national parks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very thoughtful comments in this debate.

There are opportunities for us to drill into some of these issues in committee. I am very glad that we are having a productive and respectful debate on an important subject, which is this park.

I wanted to address one of the areas she brought up with regard to the definition of low-impact exploration activities. I believe that one of my colleagues also brought this up in a question. Some of the examples raised in a previous study of this bill have been related to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board issuing a call for bids that included the subsurface of Sable Island from time to time. A company that had a successful bid would need to access the island to undertake activities to further refine its understanding of the petroleum potential in the greater Sable Island area.

I think the last time something like this happened was in 1999. A company undertook a 3D seismic program. It temporarily installed listening devices and vibrating devices to provide a sound source. However, this particular activity was subject to permits and so on.

Is this the type of information that meets the specificity she would be expecting in a committee study, which we would look forward to engaging in?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, what I would be looking for as an environmental lawyer would be clarification imposed in law. The problem is that, yes, there is a listing of activities, but then there is a wide open bucket of things that could occur, which is called “low-impact activities”.

The one provision of greatest concern is “petroleum exploration activities with a low impact on the environment”. What is that? If one talked to the oil and gas industry, many of them would say that there is absolutely no impact, because they manage x, y and z safely.

Given how small and sensitive this area is, there is a need for a very specific definition to give assurance to everyone into the future. As to what legal mechanism we can come up with, I look forward to the innovative ideas of the Government of Canada.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. It is clear that she is well versed in the subject through her background in environmental law.

I have a question for her about the cuts the Conservative government made last year to the national parks. A number of national parks employees were laid off and will be replaced with signs. I was sad to hear this, because future generations could benefit from this wealth.

Has the hon. member gotten any reaction from her constituents on this?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her dedicated work on environmental measures in the federal area. She raises a big issue, not just about the interpretation of the area but about the recent very deep cuts to the number of scientists, interpreters and so forth at Environment Canada and Parks Canada. Given that both of these matters, and also, Yoho Park, which I did not speak to, will need a high level of scientific scrutiny and close monitoring, it does raise concerns.

Sable Island, as the parliamentary secretary who spoke to the bill said, is a terrain that is changing all the time. There are hundreds of unique plant species and so forth there. Who is going to be monitoring this? Who is going to be monitoring and acting as watchdog over these so-called low environmental impacts?

For the ski area, we will want some assurance about who is going to be brought in to actually do this close evaluation of any future expansion into another part of the park of the commercial activities related to skiing. We are going to need assurances that if they do not have the scientists in-house anymore who can be accessed, they will draw upon independent scientists. They could include the wonderful, qualified scientists we have in Alberta.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member who spoke before me, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona. She gave a wonderful overview of Bill S-15. I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to this Senate bill.

We know that in 2011 the federal government and the provincial NDP government negotiated an agreement to make Sable Island a national park. Bill S-15 was drafted as a result of that agreement.

Basically, Bill S-15 proposes that Sable Island become a national park reserve. It should be noted that unlike a national park, which does not allow for aboriginal land claims within the park area, a national park reserve designation allows the government to continue land claim negotiations.

That detail is very important here because the Mi'kmaq people of Nova Scotia are currently asserting ancestral rights to the island.

We must acknowledge the presence of first nations on the territory now known as Canada. As my colleague for Edmonton—Strathcona mentioned, we need to ensure that there are proper consultations with first nations.

I hope that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development will invite first nations to appear before the committee so they can share their views. We know that the bill's preamble is not binding. We must ensure that this bill reflects the rights of first nations when it is implemented.

All the members of the House have said that Sable Island is a place Canadians should be proud of. Canadians all across the country know of this long, narrow, crescent-shaped island in the north Atlantic, southeast of Nova Scotia, because of the wild horses that inhabit the island.

Over 190 plant species have been identified on Sable Island, and it is home to the world's largest grey seal colony in the world as well as 350 species of birds. That is why it is so important that we protect this Canadian ecological gem.

By the way, I would like to thank everyone who works at the Centre d'interprétation de la nature de Boisbriand, in my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. This interpretive nature centre is a natural, wooded conservation area that covers approximately 42,500 m² and borders the Mille-Îles river. Thanks to their efforts, our children and our children's children will be able to enjoy our flora and fauna as past generations were able to do.

I would like to commend them for their hard work in the area of conservation, since that is what we are talking about this afternoon. These people are making sure that future generations will be able to enjoy our natural resources. In my opinion, we need to consider the issue of intergenerational equality.

It is also important to mention that this Conservative government is leaving an ecological debt for future generations. We know that the federal government sabotaged parks by making cuts to national parks last year. For example, the government made $29 million in cuts to the parks' budget last year, and over 600 biologist and park interpreter jobs were lost.

These people will no longer be available in our national parks to share their ecological and scientific knowledge with Canadians across the country. We know that, in some cases, park interpreters are being replaced with interpretive signs.

We also know that the Prime Minister's Conservatives committed to meeting the conservation targets set out in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. However, they are not doing so.

Unfortunately, Canada is protecting only 10% of its land area and 1% of its waters. The Conservatives do not have a very good track record in this regard. I think that future generations will inherit this debt from this backward-thinking Conservative government.

What is more, the Conservative government has eliminated major environmental protection measures in Canada. Take for example the elimination of 98% of federal environmental assessments, the elimination of 98% of the measures to protect Canada's navigable waters and the elimination of measures to protect most fish habitats.

I was very sad to learn that the environment museum located in the Montreal Biosphere would open its doors for the last time this summer. In July 2012, the Conservative government made significant cuts to the Biosphere. Now, most of the staff is being cut.

We recently learned that Environment Canada has unilaterally decided to review the mandate of the environment museum, which will not survive if it no longer has any staff. The people who are being targeted are museum professionals, educators, guides, designers and technicians.

If the Conservative government really cared about sharing scientific and technical knowledge with the public, it would not have made these drastic cuts to our parks and museums, which are our country's true treasures.

That being said, I support the bill at second reading because it seeks to protect the history and beauty of Sept-Îles. I applaud the work done by the environmental groups who have joined forces to protect Sept-Îles.

As I said, I will be supporting this bill at second reading. However, I must say that the wording of this bill does raise some concerns. As my colleagues have already mentioned, the bill prohibits drilling within one nautical mile of the island, as well as drilling on the island's surface. However, in exceptional circumstances, exploration activities will be allowed on the island, which is a first in any national park. These exploration activities will be limited to those with a low impact on the environment. However, the bill fails to clearly define those exploration activities. I believe that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment needs to have a closer look at this issue in order to clearly define the term “low impact” and clearly define the exploration activities that will be allowed under this provision.

As it stands, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board will have to consult with Parks Canada before issuing licences for petroleum-related activities. The board would have the discretionary power to include in the terms and conditions any mitigation or remedial measures that the company must take.

I hope the Standing Committee on Environment will invite many experts in order to properly examine the bill. Having been a member of the Standing Committee on Environment, I have witnessed first-hand this government's unbalanced approach to conservation. The government muzzles Canadian scientists and refuses to listen to experts or scientists who work on conservation.

Throughout this parliamentary session, Conservative members who sit on the various committees have refused to adopt the amendments proposed by opposition members, even though those amendments were based on testimony from experts and reliable information gathered in committee. The goal of such amendments is always to improve bills and make them better, including through public consultation. For once I hope the government members will accept the amendments proposed in committee by opposition members, who work very hard on the committee.

I now look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by the tone of debate earlier today, but I have to express a bit of disappointment in my colleague in turning this debate into a partisan issue, rather than looking at the form and substance of the bill itself as we hopefully take it into committee stage.

I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to speak to a specific recommendation that perhaps she would have and perhaps to take a moment to retract some of the incorrect comments that she made, including the 99% environmental screening component. The Commissioner of the Environment said in the subcommittee on Bill C-38:

The majority of screenings are very small projects for which there are no significant adverse environmental impacts. The agency has estimated that 94% of screenings would not pose significant adverse environmental impacts.

I would like the member to comment on that statement. Since she raised it in debate perhaps she could also talk about whether or not, since the Commissioner of the Environment says that 94% of these small screenings do not have significant environmental impacts, she believes that the money and time spent on these screenings is better spent on no environmental impact rather than the larger environmental impact assessments where the funding is now going.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to answer the parliamentary secretary's questions about changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, but we know that these changes were included in the omnibus bill passed last year by the Conservative government.

We really did not have the time to debate these changes in the House of Commons. That is another sign that the Conservative government refuses to be accountable to the Canadian people. Canadians across the country expressed their opposition to the changes made by the Conservative government. Moreover, the government sabotaged the consultation process for these environmental assessments. That is what I am hearing from my constituents and that is disturbing.

A number of Conservative members have risen in the House of Commons to talk about conservation. However, I would really like to hear from the members who represent the following areas: Riding Mountain in Manitoba; Point Pelee in Ontario; Banff and Jasper in Alberta; and Prince Albert in Saskatchewan.

Canadians have had to volunteer to maintain national parks because of the Conservative government's cuts.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for her speech, which was excellent as usual.

As she pointed out, the Conservative government committed to achieving the conservation targets in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. It committed to protecting at least 17% of land habitat and 10% of marine areas by 2020. However, the government is seriously behind schedule, because only 10% of land areas and 1% of marine areas are protected.

I would like my colleague to explain why it is very important, even crucial, that these targets be met.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

These targets are essential for several reasons. Canada has become an international laughingstock because the government refuses to meet its targets under international agreements such as the Kyoto protocol. In addition, the Minister of the Environment withdrew Canada from the protocol in 2011, without consulting Canadians or even the other countries.

The international community was not even aware that Canada was pulling out until the very last minute. The government refuses to take positive action on the environment and is waiting for a Senate bill to do so—because we know that Bill S-15 originated in the Senate. I urge the Conservatives to listen to Canadian scientists and environmentalists.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-15, which would amend the Canada National Parks Act to create the Sable Island national park reserve of Canada, the culmination of years of work by the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia and by various stakeholders to protect Sable Island's unique nature and ecosystem. At present, Sable Island, an ecological gem, is afforded little protection and does not have protected status.

Sable Island lies approximately 290 kilometres southeast of Nova Scotia. It is a long, crescent-shaped island in the North Atlantic. While its topography is characterized by sand dunes and grasses, it is home to a significant biodiversity, including 375 wild horses, 350 species of birds, 190 plant species and the largest colony of grey seals in the world.

Sable Island is world-renowned not only for its biodiversity but for its shipwrecks. Since 1583, there have been more than 350 recorded shipwrecks on or near the island, earning it the title of “Graveyard of the Atlantic”.

Given the unique ecosystem found on the island, in 2004 the federal and Nova Scotia governments concluded that it would be in the public interest to use a federally protected area designation to achieve conservation objectives for Sable Island.

In 2010, a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, was signed to establish a federally protected area on Sable Island. Following the MOU, public consultations were held with members of the public and with the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia to consider whether to establish a national wildlife area under the Canada Wildlife Act or a national park under the Canada National Parks Act.

In the end, the consultations recommended that Sable Island be designated a national park, and on October 17, 2011, the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia signed an MOU to establish a national park on Sable Island.

The island will be designated as a national park reserve in recognition of the fact that the island is subject to a claim of the Mi'kmaq. The Mi'kmaq and the Governments of Nova Scotia and Canada are currently negotiating this claim. The designation as a national park reserve allows the governments to continue these land claim negotiations.

Conserving Sable Island poses a challenge because of the wealth of resources in and around the island. Sable Island has been at the centre of oil and gas activities for the last 50 years. Offshore hydrocarbon exploration began in the 1960s. To date, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board has made 23 significant discovery declarations in offshore Nova Scotia, eight of which have been declared commercial discoveries. From the commercial discoveries, 53 billion cubic metres of natural gas has been produced from Sable Island offshore energy fields.

Bill S-15 would put into law an existing prohibition against drilling on Sable Island. Importantly, five oil companies that have been granted exploration licences for on-island drilling have voluntarily agreed to relinquish these rights.

Let me say clearly that the Liberal Party is strongly in favour of the establishment of Sable Island national park reserve. Sable Island must be protected. In fact, the bill coming out of the Senate had the support of Liberal Party senators.

However, the Liberal Party has concerns with the legislation that we feel are important and should be addressed at the committee stage. The Liberal Party would like to ensure that rigorous environmental protections and safeguards are maintained for this national park reserve. As well, we must ensure that any concerns by the Mi'kmaq with regard to the legislation have the opportunity to be addressed.

Liberals also have several concerns regarding the extent and oversight of natural resource development that Bill S-15 authorizes, specifically as it permits horizontal drilling underneath the island as well as low-impact exploration activities on the island. We would like to know what the government defines as “low impact” and what the effect would be on species at risk.

The Liberal Party is in favour of responsible and sustainable resource development. However, we believe that development projects like these must adhere to the most stringent environmental assessments. We must ensure that Sable Island is environmentally protected and that development does not detrimentally affect the ecosystem.

We understand the economic value that developing the oil and gas resources in and surrounding Sable Island would provide Nova Scotia. However, Sable Island is a particularly sensitive ecosystem and is, as I have mentioned, home to a wealth of biodiversity as well as many species at risk, and it is important to find the right balance.

Other concerns include the following. The bill contains changes to the dedication clause, as well as changes to land borders in Jasper National Park, while the exchange of land between Parks Canada and the operators of Marmot Basin would have a detrimental impact on species in the area.

Another concern regards clause 3, an exception to the application of the Canada National Parks Act with regard to existing leases, easements and licence of occupation and work on Sable Island. Why the allowance of renewal of licences? How many leases and licences are currently in place that affect Sable Island? We have also asked for that list from the minister's office and hope it will be provided at committee stage. We would also like to know how clause 6 corresponds with clause 3 with regard to the extension of leases on Sable Island.

In clause 7, what would be the new mechanism for coordination and co-operation between Parks Canada and the offshore petroleum board?

In the amendments to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, it states,

“Before deciding whether to issue the authorization, the Board shall consider any advice...”.

Is the offshore board not bound to the recommendation of Parks Canada? We would like to know who is looking after the interests of the environment and Sable Island if the offshore board is not bound by the decision.

Regarding clause 8, is the Conservative government not concerned with petroleum exploration activities, which might include systemic geological or geophysical programs on Sable Island?

What other activities might fall under the definition of “low-impact petroleum exploration”? What work has been undertaken to study the impacts of any programs?

Clause 14 amends the designation from utility zone to commercial zone in Yoho National Park of Canada. What changes come with the change of designation?

On clause 15, with regard to Jasper National Park, with the exchange of land and the new development, are there any areas of concern with regard to the environment and species at risk in this new area that will be developed?

The Liberal Party supports the creation of Sable Island National Park Reserve and would not block or even slow down its creation as it represents years of work by the government and stakeholders.

In fact, our environmental critic, the member for Etobicoke North, had a conference call with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, which focuses on protecting many important areas of Canada's wilderness, to confirm what aspects it was comfortable with in the bill. Even if the bill went to committee, amendments would likely not be accepted. Based on the history of the government, would society be comfortable with the bill?

I believe the government does want Sable Island protected and Bill S-15 is an important first step.

In closing, I ask that the government not use the bill as a precedent to allow exploration in other national parks. As well, I hope it will allow a number of witnesses to appear before the Standing Committee on the Environment so that concerns can be appropriately addressed and, if necessary, the bill amended so that this special national park reserve can be established.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have also been canvassing the views of environmental groups that work on park creation and conservation. There is a lot of concern across the country about the provisions that would continue to allow petroleum exploration-related activities within a national park. In particular, there should be no regulatory oversight within a national park by a body such as the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, whose mandate by legislation includes expanding oil and gas activities.

I would like to ask my hon. friend what changes we can make in committee to ensure the integrity of national parks across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is obviously an environmental buff. As she is the leader of the Green Party, I would not be able to challenge her on some of her statements.

As I stated in my speech, our environmental critic has a few things that she would like to examine at committee stage. I know the bill was looked at in the Senate. That is why we have two houses, so that we can have a review of what the other house did. I hope that this bill will have a deep review and not just a cursory review, and that we do not just quickly pass it without consultation.

One of the things that we can look at in a positive light is that, importantly, five oil companies that had been granted exploration licences for on-island drilling have voluntarily agreed to relinquish the rights. Therefore, I feel optimistic that the offshore petroleum board would not be granting licences on Sable Island.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the way this legislation is crafted for Sable Island and for other national parks, in a more collaborative way, which I think is absolutely necessary for continuation of national parks in Canada. We have an island with a nautical mile buffer zone that is totally protected but allows, for instance, Mobil Oil to go on it and monitor wells that were drilled back in the seventies to make sure that the integrity of those wells is maintained. It allows for the helipad on the island. Many national parks have helipads for evacuation purposes, and they have to be maintained. The collaboration of that is a step in the right direction, not just for Sable Island, but for other national parks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. I want to thank the member for the offer to visit Sable Island.

We are in uncharted territory. Normally petroleum companies would ask to explore a national park. This is a situation where petroleum companies are already exploring for oil or natural resources and we are going to be converting that to a national park, so we are in uncharted territory. I think we should take our time and make sure that we do consult all stakeholders, all people affected and all governments that are subject to having to govern this type of situation.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member commented on the usefulness of the Senate. I hope that he will pause and reflect on what happened to climate change legislation in the Senate just a few years ago, how the red chamber killed important climate change legislation that we all agreed upon.

However, rather than talking about the red chamber, I would like to refer the member to the red book in 1993. The member's party made a promise to make a significant improvement to the national parks system but it did not get the job done by its own deadline of 2000. I know the member was not here at that time. It was Alfonso Gagliano who sat in his place, but does he have any idea of some of the reasons and lessons that can be learned from the failure to get the job done in that seven-year period in the nineties?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to address the Senate. My own private member's bill was passed in the House of Commons and stuck in the Senate, but that is because of the Conservative-dominated Senate and the fact that its members were not able to fulfill their role as parliamentarians. It is very shameful.

However, in this situation, we had a case where the Conservatives tabled a bill and the Liberal senators on the committee were able to present amendments. The amendments were accepted. We are not sure if the same thing is going to happen here in the House. We will wait to see what committee finally does.

Maybe the member is older than I am, but in the 1990s I remember Conservative governments overspending money. When we took over we did a good job in controlling the deficit. In my youthful years I am hoping that when we take over in 2015, we will be able to get everything in order, and spend money appropriately and properly.