Massimo Pacetti

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks Act, May 31st, 2013]

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.

[Expansion and Conservation of Canada's National Parks Act, May 31st, 2013]

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.

[Ethics, May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as the scandals continue to pile up, so do the government's attempts to cover them up.

We all remember the fraudulent calls in the Mount Royal riding, the in and out scandal, the ministers found in conflicts of interest, the Bev Oda affair, the controversial appointments at the Old Port of Montreal, the Bruce Carson affair, the wasteful spending on partisan advertising, and of course the Arthur Porter affair.

What makes the government think that Canadians will believe anything it says, unless it releases all documents related to the Duffy-Wright affair?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have been going back forth. I would just reiterate that the Liberal Party is in favour of the bill. We do not see too many problems and believe that it is a tool that belongs in the tool box.

My colleague had a good speech, but it was lacking in detail. I have a very simple question. This program would have some flexibility. How would that make our streets safer? I believe the member kept mentioning that our streets are going to be safer. Exactly how is that going to happen?

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as has already been stated in the House, this bill is not revolutionary, yet it is an important piece of legislation. It has been abundantly clear that we need to modernize our Criminal Code on prizefighting, since the provisions related to this issue have not been updated since 1934. Some combat sports, such as tae kwon do, are already sanctioned in Olympic competitions yet are still technically illegal in Canada, even though provinces have applied creative interpretation of the law in order to allow these sports to be practised by Canadians.

We do know that some Canadians have concerns about combat sports. For example, during justice committee hearings on this bill, we heard the Canadian Medical Association representative tell us about its opposition to combat sports in general, while at the same time we heard testimony from another doctor telling us he is supportive of combative sports as long as they are properly regulated. Therefore, as parliamentarians, our focus should be to make sure these sports ensure the security of the fighters.

When testifying before the committee, a Canadian Medical Association representative stated that no studies exist that have shown mixed martial arts to be more dangerous than other combat sports. What we do know is that there are some studies that show that MMA competitions cause fewer severe injuries than other contact sports such as boxing. The reason for this is simple: MMA participants can perform various submission manoeuvres, which cause their opponents to tap out before they suffer substantial injuries. In boxing, the only way to win before time expires is by knockout or technical knockout, which is why boxers often deliver or receive hundreds of punches to the head in a single competition. MMA requires a more cautious approach than boxing because, in addition to defending against direct strikes, MMA fighters must also defend against being taken down by wrestling manoeuvres and being caught in submission or choke holds. As a result, boxing has higher knockout rates than MMA, which also means that mixed martial arts participants are less likely to suffer brain injuries than boxers.

This has been confirmed by researchers from Johns Hopkins University who published an article in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine in 2006, which compared the wounds sustained during different types of sports. Their conclusions were that minor injuries sustained in MMA, such as facial lacerations and broken noses, are overall similar to injuries sustained in boxing. The study also suggested that the risk of brain damage is lower in MMA than in boxing, kick-boxing and other similar combat sports because MMA contests end with a knockout less frequently.

We know that mixed martial arts are not more dangerous than other combat sports. We know that other popular sports, such as karate and tae kwon do, are practised by millions of Canadians including children, yet given this knowledge, what these sports all have in common is that they are officially not legal according to the Canadian Criminal Code.

Does this mean that millions of Canadians are criminals? Such an assertion is laughable. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure the laws that govern our society evolve to reflect the reality of the times in which we live, which is why it is time for us to modernize the prizefighting provisions in our Criminal Code.

It is also important to mention the economic aspect. Mixed martial arts are extremely popular and will likely continue to grow in popularity in coming years. Canadians already represent a quarter of the global fan base. Organizers of UFC, the largest mixed martial arts competition, love Canada because they can fill the stadiums so easily.

There is every indication that Canada will host more and more competitions in the future. There is therefore a great deal of potential for tourism spinoffs here. By modernizing the Criminal Code, we are removing an obstacle to the development of this industry in Canada, without necessarily promoting combat sports.

The point of this bill is not to encourage or dissuade Canadians from participating in the sport of mixed martial arts, tae kwon do, karate or judo, Canadians are smart enough to decide that for themselves. The bill simply seeks to clarify the law so that Canadians can participate in these sports safely and legally by giving the provinces proper tools to regulate these popular sports, which is why I invite all my colleagues to vote in favour of passing this bill.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking at some of the notes that we have. I understand that the railway companies seem to be opposed to this legislation. Meanwhile, the shippers are in favour of it. Here we are again with legislation that is a bit controversial. All that is going to happen with this legislation, and perhaps the member could clarify this, is that we are going to have more litigation and more delays.

How is the bill going to rectify this so that all parties are going to be in agreement? Is the bill going to make both the shippers and the railways happy with providing services to Canadians because ultimately that is who we are here to serve?

[First Nations Elections Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the bill. However, the court recently said that the Conservative Party has been accused of certain electoral irregularities. I am wondering if the government is in any position to be tabling any type of election act, especially for first nations. The question is pretty direct.

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we went off topic a little when the member talked about summer jobs. However, in my riding students are having a difficult time finding jobs, and I will ask a quick, easy and direct question.

Is it because I do not have a museum in my riding that these kids cannot find a job?

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in continuation of my question, we are going to be voting on extending our sitting hours so that we can continue and increase the hours of debate. Meanwhile we have closure, whereby the House leader, as he just indicated, is going to pick and choose the items we are going to be debating and what we are allowed to say.

In the meantime, we have not even been able to debate what is before the House right now, so why does he not allow the debate to go on and forget about this closure motion?

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if the House leader is aware that tonight we are going to be voting on a motion to extend the sitting hours, which means extra debate. Right now, the House leader has tabled a motion to stop debate. Could the House leader please reconcile the two?