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.