Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 41 - Evidence - April 16, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 16, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred 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, met this day at 6:15 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Richard Neufeld (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Richard Neufeld. I represent the province of British Columbia in the Senate, and I am chair of the committee. I would like to welcome honourable senators, any members of the public with us in the room and viewers all across the country who are watching on television. I will now ask the senators to introduce themselves. The deputy chair is busy in the Senate as we speak, and so we will go over to you, Senator Unger.
Senator Unger: I am Betty Unger from Edmonton, Alberta.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace, from New Brunswick.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, senator from Nunavut.
Senator Massicotte: Paul Massicotte, Quebec.
Senator Lang: Senator Dan Lang, Yukon.
Senator Sibbeston: I am Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories.
The Chair: To my left is our clerk, Lynn Gordon, and the Library of Parliament's Sam Banks and Marc LeBlanc.
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, was tabled by the Leader of the Government in the Senate on February 12, 2013, and was referred to our committee on March 27, 2013.
The proposed legislation will establish the Sable Island national park reserve of Canada.
Honourable senators, your office should have received the legislative summary, through our clerk's office, from the Library of Parliament, as well as the clause-by-clause briefing book from Parks Canada, which you will hopefully have with you today.
Today, I am pleased to begin our hearings on Bill S-15 with two groups of witnesses. In our first segment, I welcome, from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, also known as CPAWS, Alison Woodley, Director, National Conservation. We will hear Ms. Woodley's testimony and go to questions and answers, then welcome our second group of witnesses, whom I shall introduce at that time.
Ms. Woodley you have the floor.
Alison Woodley, Director, National Conservation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, honourable senators. I would like to thank the members of the committee for inviting us to lead off these hearings today by presenting our thoughts on Bill S-15.
[Translation]
I wish to thank the Committee members for inviting us to discuss Bill S-15.
[English]
CPAWS is Canada's voice for parks and public wilderness protection. For 50 years, we have played a key role in the establishment of many of Canada's protected areas, including many national parks. Our goal is that Canada will protect at least half of our public lands and waters. We also work to ensure our parks are managed to protect nature as a first priority. We have 13 regional chapters across the country, including one in Nova Scotia that has been very engaged in the project to protect Sable Island as a national park. We have a national office here in Ottawa and over 50,000 active supporters.
There are three elements of Bill S-15 that I would like to speak to today. The first is the establishment of the Sable Island national park reserve, which is the primary focus of the bill. The second is a proposed change to the dedication clause of the Canada National Parks Act, and the third is changes to the Marmot Basin leasehold area in Jasper National Park, which I will just mention briefly.
I want to start by saying that CPAWS strongly supports the designation of Sable Island as a national park reserve. In fact, we discovered that we had first requested this designation for the island way back in 1971. Sable Island is a very special place. I do not have time to go into the details of the values of this place, and I am sure you are all aware of them. It is a very special place for Nova Scotians and all Canadians. It is clear that those who care about the future of Sable Island feel a very deep connection to this place, often without ever having been there, and they want the island to receive the highest level of protection possible. For too long, Sable Island has been managed by different federal departments, sometimes with competing mandates, and by scraping together bits of funding. This situation is not sustainable in the long term, so having Parks Canada take over management of the island as a national park reserve is a welcome step.
Moving forward, we will be recommending that Parks Canada develop a strong and effective management plan for Sable Island. We are encouraging the agency to take a creative approach to telling the Sable Island story by placing emphasis on "off-island" visitor experiences, such as a state-of-the-art visitor facility on the mainland and a creative online site where people can learn about this sensitive and remote island without having to set foot there. It is much better, in our view, to bring Sable Island to the people than to bring the people to Sable Island.
CPAWS is supportive of Bill S-15 proceeding to establish Sable Island National Park Reserve, but we are respectfully requesting several amendments to provide greater protection for the national park.
Sable Island is located within the area where the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord applies. This means that there is a unique legal framework for this national park proposal in that the accord implementation act actually takes precedence over other federal legislation, including the National Parks Act.
Because of this situation, we have been recommending that the offshore accord implementation acts be amended to prohibit oil and gas activities on and beneath Sable Island. Bill S-15 partially achieves this by prohibiting drilling on the surface of the island and within one nautical mile of the low-tide mark, and we welcome this as a significant step in the right direction. However, Bill S-15 would still allow some low-impact oil and gas exploration activities to occur on the island, and Parks Canada would not have control of these activities inside the national park. Instead, the decisions would be made by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, with Parks Canada only providing recommendations.
Also, the bill would not prohibit horizontal drilling from proceeding underneath the island.
To strengthen the protection of Sable Island, we are recommending four amendments to the bill. The first is to amend clause 6 to prohibit drilling and exploration for petroleum in the park. The second is to further amend the same clause 6 to apply the drilling prohibition not only to the surface of Sable Island but also to under the island.
The third is to delete in clause 8 of the bill the proposed subsection 142.1(3)(b), which enables the low-impact exploration activity to be conducted within the park, and then to delete clause 7, which is the process for managing this exploration, because it would not be needed if the proposed subsection (3)(b) were deleted. We have some specific wording suggested to make those changes, to clause 6 particularly.
With these changes, we believe that Bill S-15 would provide better protection for the important ecosystems of Sable Island, which is consistent with what Nova Scotians and Canadians expect in our national parks. We very much look forward to the protection of this iconic Canadian landscape through the creation of Sable Island National Park Reserve.
I would like to go on to the next point about the proposed amendments to the Canada National Parks Act dedication clause. I would like to explain CPAWS' concern with clause 13 of the bill. The dedication clause, subsection 4(1) of the Canada National Parks Act, has remained essentially unchanged since Canada's first national parks act was passed into law in 1930. It has clearly stood the test of time. The dedication clause currently reads as follows:
The national parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
Clause 13 proposes to change the phrase "subject to this Act and the regulations" to "subject to any Act of Parliament." While this change may seem minor, in consulting with our lawyers, we have determined that the amended clause could be interpreted as making the National Parks Act subordinate to other acts of Parliament even in cases where those other acts conflict with the purpose of national parks. In essence, the requirement to maintain our national parks unimpaired for future generations could be subordinated to other priorities that would cause harm to our parks.
We fully understand this is not the intention of the amendment. The intention of the amendment is really a technical issue. However, we are concerned that this could be an unintended consequence of the amendment. We are respectfully suggesting that the simplest and best solution to this problem is to drop the proposed amendment to the dedication clause and leave it as is.
We do, however, understand that a tweak is needed to the dedication clause to resolve a slight discrepancy between the French and English versions, and we have no problem with that minor change.
We are hoping that the honourable committee members will support the removal of this proposed amendment and ensure that the dedication clause continues to a guide the management of our beloved national parks as it has done for over 80 years. I am pleased to get into further discussion about some of the details of that in the question and answer period.
The third section I would like to comment on is the Marmot Basin amendment in Jasper National Park, with some brief comments on clause 15 of the bill. We do not have a specific amendment to put forward here, but I did want to flag with the honourable committee members that there is a broader context for this change. In exchange for this reduction in the leasehold area, there are significant new development proposals being considered by Marmot Basin that we believe could have a significant impact on wildlife in the park, including caribou, which are identified as threatened under the Species at Risk Act.
For new development to be considered outside the current footprint of the ski area, 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.
As final decisions are made over the coming months about potential developments at Marmot Basin, we will be looking to Parks Canada to uphold its responsibility to put ecological integrity first in its decision making.
I would end by summarizing our recommendations on Bill S-15.
On Sable Island, CPAWS supports the establishment of the Sable Island national park reserve and recommends that protection measures be strengthened by prohibiting all oil and gas activity and drilling on and under Sable Island.
On the dedication clause, we have concerns about the proposal to amend the dedication clause to make it subject to any act of Parliament, as this could make the National Parks Act subservient to other acts and priorities that could harm our parks, and we are recommending that the proposed amendment be withdrawn and the dedication clause be left as is.
Third, we wanted to flag the negative impact that potential Marmot Basin development proposals could have on at- risk caribou and other wildlife in Jasper National Park.
Thank you for your attention, and I am happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We will go to questions, starting with Senator MacDonald.
Senator MacDonald: Thank you. As a Nova Scotian, I take particular interest in this bill. I also introduced the bill in the Senate for the government. I have a few questions on your presentation.
We created Banff National Park back in 1885, and by designating Sable Island as a national park, we are going to continue this legacy. There is broad-based support for the establishment of Sable Island as a national park. Could you elaborate on what you think the further advantages are of establishing Sable Island as a national park aside from what was stated in the bill?
Ms. Woodley: Some of them I mentioned in my opening remarks, and it really has been a cobbled-together protection so far. Multiple departments have been involved. Sometimes there have been conflicts between the mandates of the different departments. It has been difficult to get secure funding to protect Sable Island national park. This is really a way to bring Sable Island under the mandate of an agency that has, as its prime mandate, the protection of our most treasured areas in Canada and their ecosystem health and assure that it gets brought into a positive management framework that includes a requirement to have a management plan and to do research and monitoring to track the state of what is happening on the island and to feed that back into management planning over time. It has the benefit of bringing it under one department with a mandate for conservation and protection and that has a budget to do that and a management framework that will help to support the long-term protection of Sable Island and, at the same time, bring it in a way that it does not jeopardize its ecosystem health and help Canadians better understand what an amazing place Sable Island really is. Those are the kinds of things we see as the value. The Canada National Parks Act and national parks in Canada really are our highest standard of protection and conservation in the country, so it really does recognize the value of Sable Island and put a long-term protection framework in place.
Senator MacDonald: In regard to the Marmot Basin ski area, there has been a lot of discussion about that, and you said you do not think there is an advantage in exchange of this land environmentally, but of course more land is being transferred to the government than is being taken by the Marmot Basin ski area. They seem to have done a lot of due diligence in this area, but you still have reservations. Could you expand more on that?
Ms. Woodley: I have mentioned that we are not proposing an amendment, but I think what happens in the coming months will determine whether there is a substantial environmental gain. A number of proposals are being considered as part of the exchange, and it depends on what goes forward as to what the net benefit will be, if you will. Some proposals could result in more people going into caribou habitat. If that is the case, then it could cause further harm. The area that is being excluded from the leasehold area is not developed, so if in return for that we allow a significant amount of development that could have an impact, then the net benefit may be difficult to see.
That being said, there are several studies ongoing right now, and we are awaiting the results of those to be able to really assess the impacts with more evidence. Certainly significant concerns are being expressed at the local level about this, and we will be engaging in those discussions going forward. The decisions that happen from here on in will be critical in determining what happens there and whether that substantial environmental gain is realized.
Senator MacDonald: In regard to the proposals you make relating to oil and gas exploration now under Sable Island, I am under the impression that a good balance has been struck between the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the needs of Nova Scotians. Nova Scotia is a have-not province. Nova Scotia is trailing the country in growth. Nova Scotia has an aging population. Nova Scotia is revenue-starved. We are creating a new national park, but you suggest that we put further restrictions in the bill on even drilling underneath, the horizontal drilling. I will not go into the technical aspects of this now, but I am curious if you have some sort of hard evidence to suggest that there is some huge environmental problem with horizontal drilling under Sable Island that the board was not previously aware of. Horizontal drilling is done in a lot of places. If Nova Scotians have the ability to create revenue, we do not want that ability to be taken from us.
Ms. Woodley: We have heard from many Nova Scotians over the course of these discussions, as I think the government has, and we are hearing overwhelmingly that they just really want to protect Sable Island and then basically leave it alone.
Senator MacDonald: We are putting the park there and we will protect it.
Ms. Woodley: Our focus here is to make sure that the protection above and below the surface of the island match up. That is consistent with other national parks. Our sense is that horizontal drilling and oil and gas exploration are not appropriate in a national park; and that is the case across the country. It is about doing an equivalent approach to a national park through a different mechanism. The offshore act is the mechanism that has to be used here because of the unusual legal context and the layered nature of the act. That is our focus.
The Chair: I would like to ask a little more about that. You said it does not happen in other parks. What would you, as a group, have against horizontal drilling beneath Sable Island, other than it is not allowed in other parks? What would drive you to say that that should not happen? What actually causes you to make that statement?
Ms. Woodley: Nova Scotians and Canadians are looking to Sable Island to be a national park in its truest sense in that what is under the surface of a national park is protected as well as what is on the surface. That is the standard we apply, so we think an equivalent standard should be made.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Sable Island is a tiny sliver of land with only 30 square kilometres. It shifts, absolutely, and that would be an interesting challenge. Underneath, it is one kilometre at its widest. In terms of providing protection above and below the surface for that tiny sliver of sand, we think the appropriate response is to make it equivalent to other national parks across the country.
The Chair: My second question is on the activities of low impact on the environment, including seismic, geological and geophysical programs. You rightly say that that does not allow drilling. However, I believe that there are half a dozen or so wellheads on the island, and although they are capped and plugged, they may have to be re-entered for who knows what reason at some time down the road. You would not have any problem with that, would you? That is what they are trying to relate to here in striking that balance with the offshore board and Parks Canada to try to ensure that we still look after it, in the correct way, and maintain it as environmentally sensitive. That is what I get out of the bill.
Ms. Woodley: On the existing wells, there is a clause that allows for them to be maintained. If there are problems, we have to make sure they do not cause future harm and to continue to address and manage them because they exist; and there is nothing to be done about that retroactively. The bill appropriately allows for the maintenance of those wells over time to ensure they do not cause problems. We do not have a problem with that. We would not support having the wells used for oil and gas purposes in the future because that is not appropriate in a national park. It contradicts the purposes of the national park.
The Chair: Yes, and I do not disagree with that part of it. That is why they are capped, plugged and left; and that is why the bill says what it says.
Ms. Woodley: Absolutely.
Senator Massicotte: My understanding of the proposed legislation is that they cannot drill within one nautical mile. I know that in a woodland environment, even if you do not touch a certain plant but are close to a plant, you impact the environment. Is that the case for drilling? Why one nautical mile? What is the right number, if that is not the right number?
Ms. Woodley: We welcome one nautical mile because it gives a buffer around the park. We are focused on ensuring that what happens in the national park meets the test of a national park. We have been focused on upgrading the standard in the national park as our priority recommendation. We do not have a recommendation on the appropriate distance.
Senator Massicotte: You are concerned obviously that they can get to horizontal drilling with that one nautical mile. Is that a concern to you? It is a long way.
Ms. Woodley: That was not the context for our concern. We do not have an amendment to put forward on that number. We are focused on what happens in the national park. We appreciate the fact that a buffer is proposed as well. What the right number is, I do not know. I can imagine that the closer you get to the island, the more difficult pragmatically it is for drilling activities. Is there a better number? I do not know. I do not have a number for that. We are focusing on inside the park.
Senator Seidman: I would like to ask you more detail about the remarks you made on an amendment to the dedication clause. I am not sure that I understand the rationale behind your proposal and the way you present the problem with the change. I would appreciate an elaboration.
Ms. Woodley: Thanks for the question, because I know there was not a lot of detail about the problem.
In looking around at the rationale for this, it really is a technical issue. It was not meant to be a substantive issue. Our concern is about unintended consequences. My understanding is that the technical issue being faced was related to the fact that Parks Canada collects user fees under several pieces of legislation. There was concern that that was incompatible.
Our concern about the proposed solution to that problem, if indeed it is a problem, is that its scope is so much broader than the technical detail that it is designed to fix that it could have these unintended consequences that could change substantively the clause and have implications for the future. We believe it should be withdrawn, and if there is a decision that the problem needs to be fixed, then the solution should be scoped, scaled and focused on the appropriate issue, not something as broad as this that could have fundamental issues for a national parks service.
At this time, we recommend that it be withdrawn. The technical issue does not match the overarching solution that is being proposed.
Senator Seidman: Are you saying that your understanding is that the need to have a different approach to fees or to have fees or the introduction of that is what prompts this amendment?
Ms. Woodley: That is what prompted the amendment. To be more specific about our understanding, we have been asking a lot of questions. The issue arose at the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. The issue is around the fact that there are multiple pieces of legislation that could be used to collect fees. It is a very precise issue that is being resolved. Not being a lawyer, I cannot suggest that I understand the intimate details of the problem, but I think it is important to fully understand the problem and how big the problem is and, if it is a problem, understand in more detail and scope a solution to the narrowest possible solution rather than this broad solution that could have unintended consequences, which we have identified.
Senator Seidman: What could those unintended consequences be?
Ms. Woodley: The challenge is that if we indicate in the dedication clause that it is subject to any act of Parliament rather than subject to the National Parks Act, then it could open up a situation where you could see another act of Parliament that may have purposes or activities in conflict with the purpose of a national park. The National Parks Act could end up subservient to that piece of legislation, and you could not protect the national park necessarily from the activities that would be proposed under another piece of legislation. The fact that the Canada National Parks Act would be subservient to another piece of legislation, even if it was in conflict with the purposes of the Canada National Parks Act, is the unintended consequence that we have identified.
Senator Seidman: You are saying that this particular law would be subservient. I am trying to understand.
Ms. Woodley: Our understanding, from our legal advisers, is that if there is language around "subject to" something in an act, it could signal that it is subject to, meaning it is subservient to whatever it is subject to. If you are signalling that it is subject to any act of Parliament, you could be signalling or it could be interpreted as signalling that it is subservient to another act of Parliament, even if the other act is in conflict with the Canada National Parks Act.
Our legal advisers did a review of other acts of Parliament and found there are no other examples of acts of Parliament that say "subject to any act." There is only one example in a regulation, and it actually constrains what it is being subject to, to an act that is consistent with the act within which it is embedded.
It sounds like a small technical issue. Again, it is a technical issue, but we are concerned about the potentially broad unintended consequences and we just really think we should keep that dedication clause, which has served us so well for over 80 years, intact.
Senator Wallace: Thank you, Ms. Woodley. You are suggesting that the oil and gas exploration activities be further restricted than what the bill currently provides. Could you tell us, from your own experience and your organization's experience, what types of activities are permitted or actually occur in other national parks, not necessarily those, obviously, that are on an island in the ocean, but generally with other national parks? How does it compare? How does that permitted activity compare?
Ms. Woodley: Our understanding is that oil and gas exploration activities are not allowed in any other national park because they do not have this unusual circumstance of the Canada National Parks Act being subservient to the offshore petroleum acts, which is an unusual situation.
Senator Wallace: As you pointed out in your presentation, having Parks Canada involved in this process involving Sable Island you see as a positive. Could you expand upon that? How would you see that being beneficial as compared to the Coast Guard, which is now administering the act?
Ms. Woodley: Parks Canada has, as its mission, the management and protection of these places for future generations, so it completely aligns with the mission of the organization, which I think is really helpful. Again, there were several agencies involved in the past and so it was always kind of a committee process and not always in agreement on what the direction for the island was.
In fact, there have been times when it has been very difficult to get even basic budget allocations to kind of keep the island protected and the research and monitoring activities ongoing. It will provide a more coherent framework that is consistent with the mission of the organization and have one agency with a budget that is committed to the long-term protection of Sable Island. I think that is key, the long-term protection, to leave it unimpaired for future generations, which is what we are hearing from Nova Scotians and Canadians is really wanted.
Senator Wallace: From your experience, have there been any oil and gas exploration activities in or around the island that have been problematic to the island to this point?
Ms. Woodley: I am actually not very well versed to say that. Certainly there has been activity. There are several wells on the island that have been capped in the past, and it is past activity, not current activity. Obviously, oil and gas activity can cause harm to these places, and so protecting it from that is really what we have been hearing that Nova Scotians are very much in favour of.
Senator Wallace: I was just trying to get a sense if there was an actual incident or particular problems that the bill was seeking to address. I understand the preventive side of that. We all agree with that; we want to prevent these types of things from occurring before they happen. I just wondered if you were aware of something that caused this bill to be brought forward. Was there an actual problem they were seeking to address?
Ms. Woodley: I think it was more the coherence of the management framework. I do not have a specific example that I can provide for you, but it has been discussed for a long time. As I mentioned earlier, we first put it forward in 1971, but there were several years of discussions before the national parks proposal became the kind of option pursued. Various options were assessed through a process, as I understand it, between Nova Scotia and the federal government to look at various options. This was the option that emerged as the one that would provide a strong protective framework for the island moving forward.
I would also note what I said earlier about bringing Sable Island to the people rather than the people to Sable Island, because that is very important, from our perspective, in terms of making sure that a sensitive and small, remote island ecosystem remains intact and well protected as well.
Senator Unger: Ms. Woodley, I would like to know a little bit more about how the opinions of your organization are formulated. You talk about imprecise things. You say "could have fundamental issues with" or "could have negative impacts on caribou." In another part you talk about the act being subject to any act of Parliament, and after consulting with your lawyers you decided that this was not a good thing. How much do you talk to the people to get their opinions of what is good for them, the premier, for example, of Nova Scotia? Would you enlighten me on that?
Ms. Woodley: Yes. On the first one, how we formulated our opinions specifically on Jasper, the reason that I put in those cautionary notes is that a proposal that has not been put forward yet. There are things being considered, and the next step will be that proposals will come forward and be considered. Obviously at that point we need to look at them in more detail, once we have them to look at, and use the science to really look at that. We get involved in public processes consistently and encourage our supporters to get involved in public processes that are ongoing for decisions made around national parks. We work collaboratively.
In the case of Sable Island, we have a staff person in Nova Scotia who has been in conversations with the Nova Scotia government and with Parks Canada and with our supporters, and really working to build a collaborative consensus around this and bring those kinds of recommendations to the table and encourage people to get involved. Yes, we work with our supporters, we work with governments, we work with industry often and we work with Aboriginal peoples. We are a very collaborative organization in how we develop and get engaged in public policy.
Senator Unger: You said you have one staff person in Nova Scotia?
Ms. Woodley: We actually have a national staff person who is based in Nova Scotia, Dr. Chris Miller, who has been most heavily engaged in the Sable Island project, because he is in Nova Scotia where the dialogue is happening. Right now we have one other staff person there and we often have interns over the summer. Our chapter there is small, but they have a consistent presence in what goes on in Nova Scotia on the conservation front.
Senator Unger: Who will provide the further details about potential negative impacts to the caribou?
Ms. Woodley: We are a science-based organization, so we will look at the scientific evidence that is there, that comes out. In the case of Jasper, there is right now a caribou study that is not complete yet, so we will be looking for the results of that to see what it concludes about the potential impacts of proposals there. We look at the science as our foundational piece. We also talk to our members, obviously, about their perspective.
Senator Unger: I hate to belabour the point, but who is doing the caribou study specifically?
Ms. Woodley: My understanding is it is a joint study between Parks Canada and the proponent to look at the impacts. I think it is being conducted by an academic scientist from the University of Alberta, but I am not absolutely sure. It is third party. We are looking at peer-reviewed science.
Senator Patterson: I would like to focus on your comments on the Marmot Basin in Jasper National Park. You mentioned the dedication clause, and you commented on it. As I see it, the dedication clause looks at benefit, education and enjoyment, or forms of use of the park; and then the other part of the dedication is the maintenance of parks so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
On that dedication, would you consider skiing to be within the concept of enjoyment of the park? Second, do you see the dedication clause preamble as being an approach of balance between use and protection?
Ms. Woodley: The dedication clause is part of the guidance, but you have to look at the entire act. There is a clear statement in the Canada National Parks Act, section 8(2), which says that ecological integrity must be the first priority for all management decisions by the minister. That is not a direct quote, but that is close to it. There is a clear statement in the act that ecological integrity is the first priority in managing our national parks.
Senator Patterson: My understanding is that an agreement has been reached between Parks Canada and the Marmot Basin ski area whereby about 60 hectares would be allowed to be used for Nordic ski trails and the development of a lift terminal in a small area, and that these improvements are happening in the vicinity of the present ski area. I skied there myself, actually, in my younger days.
You expressed serious concern in your brief that wildlife, caribou, mountain goats and grizzly bears are actually threatened by expanding the existing ski area. Are they around the existing ski area? Is that what you are suggesting?
Ms. Woodley: You are at an advantage because you may know the landscape better than I do, but Whistler Creek is a very important area of caribou habitat and it is just on the north side of Marmot Basin. That is the area that is of grave concern because it is so important to caribou in Jasper National Park. Three of the four herds of caribou in Jasper National Park have already declined significantly and are at risk of disappearing, according to Parks Canada and their caribou plan. If there is a development that goes forward that results in many more people getting into Whistler Creek, that could pose significant problems for the caribou there.
One of the things that have been identified is that when there are trails into caribou habitat, from skiers or from whatever users, caribou basically in the winter go to very remote areas and areas of deep snow to escape from predators. They have an advantage over predators in those areas of deep snow because they have big feet and longer legs and they can navigate in it easier than wolves, for example. However, when there are trails into those areas, wolves can use the trails and can access much more easily these areas of winter habitat. Therefore, it can tip the predator-prey balance so that vulnerable herds of caribou can be losing more animals, and that can be a problem in a herd that is already in trouble.
This is one of the issues identified in Parks Canada's caribou strategy. One of the things they are addressing now is that they are proposing to delay the opening of some backcountry areas for skiing to prevent wolves from accessing these areas more easily on ski trails. We have been supporting that proposal. We think it is a reasonable part of their strategy. We do not want to see many more people having access to this area and creating trails and tipping that balance. That is one example of the kinds of things we are concerned about. As this process moves forward, we will continue to engage in that and put forward our perspectives in more detail as we see the details come forward.
Senator Patterson: I am glad you mentioned Whistler Creek Valley, because I understand that the agreement calls for the addition of 118 hectares of the Whistler Creek Valley, which would be protected as an addition to the existing declared wilderness area in Jasper National Park. That very area, as I understand the agreement, would be protected, and the area to be developed to the south, in the ski area, would be 60 hectares. The net impact of this proposed change would be a net increase to declared wilderness of just under 60 hectares.
In the spirit of balance, would you not agree that this is, in fact, a net gain for wilderness area and, in balance, represents progress?
Ms. Woodley: As I mentioned, we are not suggesting an amendment to the act. These are decisions that will be happening over time. What we are watching for, though, is this: Yes, there is an area that is proposed to be withdrawn from the leasehold, but we have to make sure that the development that happens subsequent to that, in exchange, does not have a greater effect than the gain from adding the habitat that was removed from the leasehold. None of this area was developed, and there were no proposals to develop it, including the area that has been exchanged.
We are not suggesting an amendment to that in terms of changing the leasehold, but we will be monitoring the situation and participating in those discussions going forward. I just thought it was important for the committee to understand the broader context.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Woodley, for your presentation and your answers. That was very good. I think we are out of questioners. The clock tells me that we are finished.
Honourable senators, welcome to the second half of our meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. We are continuing our examination of Bill S-15, the proposed legislation to establish the Sable Island national park reserve of Canada.
I am pleased to welcome here in Ottawa, having travelled from Nova Scotia, the Honourable Leonard Preyra, Minister of Communities, Culture and Heritage, and also, as I understand, the MLA for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island; and Stuart Pinks, Chief Executive Officer for the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.
Also joining us by video conference from Halifax is Timothy Brownlow, Acting Chair, Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.
Mr. Minister and gentlemen, thank you for appearing before us today. I would like to ask the minister to begin and deliver his opening remarks, followed by Mr. Brownlow. Then we will open up the floor for questions and answers. Thank you very much and welcome; we appreciate your being here.
Hon. Leonard Preyra, MLA, Minister of Communities, Culture and Heritage, Government of Nova Scotia: Mr. Chair and honourable senators, thank you for this opportunity to speak to this very important bill. As you said, Mr. Chair, I am the Minister of Communities, Culture and Heritage but, just as important, I am the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Halifax Citadel-Sable Island, and I am here for both those reasons. I am delighted to be here to mark another significant milestone in the process to designate Sable Island as a national park reserve.
I know there are other elements to the bill, but I will speak more specifically to the parts that relate to Sable Island and the offshore accord.
As you know, on October 17, 2011, Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter, along with Minister Peter Kent, the minister responsible for Parks Canada, signed a landmark agreement to make this island a national park reserve. The historic memorandum has helped secure a future of greater protection for this unique island, and this agreement holds significance for all Canadians. For Nova Scotians in particular, it is an especially meaningful measure. It is part of our natural and cultural heritage, and this agreement recognizes that Sable Island is a unique and fragile ecosystem of provincial and national significance and it is important that it is protected for present and future generations.
This agreement commits the Government of Canada and the province of Nova Scotia to protecting Sable Island for everyone, including future generations.
Mr. Chair, honourable senators, Sable Island holds a special place in the hearts of Nova Scotians and Canadians across the country. Its recorded history is long and detailed and spans more than four centuries. Forty-two kilometres long, the island is located 290 kilometres off Halifax and is still part of my constituency.
Over the years, Sable Island has been a place of ecological wonder, dramatic marine events, important meteorological and biological research and artistic inspiration. Canada's first life-saving station, established in 1801, was built here. If you have not had the pleasure of a visit, it has been described this way: Isolated and remote, a wild and windswept island of sand far out in the North Atlantic, it is one of Canada's furthest offshore islands. It is home to a bird sanctuary, including the Ipswich Sparrow, and two 300-year-old lighthouses. Several hundred of the famous Sable Island wild horses roam freely, and the world's biggest breeding colony of grey seals use the extensive beaches. Freshwater ponds hint at the life-sustaining freshwater lens floating below the island. Plants, birds and insects have adapted to life on Sable Island, some of which are found nowhere else on earth. I am sure you will agree it is a perfect location for a national park preserved for all Canadians and the world at large, now and for future generations.
Designating this national park reserve was truly a joint effort, working collaboratively with our federal government partners and other stakeholders. First, the team evaluated which legislation would work best to legally protect Sable Island for the future.
As an aside, honourable senators, I would like to give a shout out to the Canadian Coast Guard for its wonderful stewardship of Sable Island. The change that we are looking at now is really a reflection of a change in time and circumstances and the role of the Coast Guard and its ability and capacity to do it, particularly its inclusion in the Canada Shipping Act. The Coast Guard has been a great steward of Sable Island, and this change is not a reflection on that but a reflection of change in time.
It became clear the best change was to advance Sable for designation as part of the national parks system. Through the federal-provincial agreement we began pursuing this plan. We then worked on the best way forward while considering various interests, including offshore petroleum resources. With that in mind, both our governments agreed to present legislation to prohibit drilling on the surface of Sable Island and out one nautical mile.
While providing long-term stable protection for the island, we are also preserving the ability to extract the petroleum resources that we know are there by means other than drilling from the island.
This change in legislation will allow access to the island for non-intrusive activities such as emergency evacuation of offshore workers and for low-impact petroleum exploration activities such as placing listening devices across the sand to pick up information from offshore seismic sound sources. These activities will require adherence to a code of practice for protection of the island and will be regulated by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board in consultation with Parks Canada.
Once enshrined in law, Sable Island's surface will never again be drilled. The petroleum companies strongly support this measure and volunteered to amend their discovery licences to follow this provision. These licences have now been amended and were approved by the federal and provincial ministers.
We are truly working together — government, business, environmental groups and other stakeholders — to ensure the significant cultural, heritage and ecological value of Sable Island is maintained.
Honourable senators, I do want to give some credit to Zoe Lucas, who has been on the island for 40 years, one of two residents. There are others there doing work at other times of the year, but Zoe Lucas and the Green Horse Society have been great custodians of Sable Island. She is in many ways the Jane Goodall of Sable Island. Also, Gerry Forbes is the station manager at Sable Island.
The amendments to the accord acts are another step in the process towards completing the designation of Sable Island as Canada's forty-third national park. The Nova Scotia House of Assembly is currently in session, and we will be introducing similar amendments in our legislature to enshrine this protection in provincial law.
Nova Scotia will continue to carry out important work on Sable Island, such as scientific research and environmental, climate change, weather and atmospheric monitoring. There are a number of groups that have been active on Sable Island in this regard and I want to give them a shout out too: in particular, the Ecology Action Centre, Mark Butler, David Richardson and Saint Mary's University, Chris Miller and CPAWS, April Hennigar and the Friends of Sable Island. There are a number of groups.
It was a surprise how much interest there was not just in Nova Scotia but right across the world in Sable Island and the protection of Sable Island.
Nova Scotia will provide advice on the ongoing management of the island through the Canada-Nova Scotia committee. We will provide input on numerous topics, including ensuring the island's natural and cultural heritage is protected, studied and interpreted for the benefit of all Canadians.
I would like to commend Parks Canada for the consultative approach to the establishment of Sable Island as a national park reserve and for their ongoing commitment to stakeholder consultation and inclusion, in particular Julie Tompa, who has been responsible for coordinating the consultations as project manager, Parks Canada, and earlier, Kevin McNamee, Director of Parks Canada.
We look forward to ongoing discussions with Parks Canada as they move forward with the management planning and then the actual ongoing management of this unique site. Sable Island is part of Nova Scotia's and Canada's history. As part of the national parks system, it will be a special part of our future.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Minister Kent, Minister MacKay, Minister Parker, Nova Scotia's Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Harold Carroll, from the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, and numerous others and all our hard-working staff members at federal and provincial levels who contributed to the success of this process.
Sable Island is a precious historical and ecological treasure that must be protected in the best possible way.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister Preyra. Mr. Brownlow, please proceed.
Timothy Brownlow, Acting Chair, Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB): Thank you for the invitation to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to appear before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I am pleased to have the opportunity to communicate to the committee the board's support for Bill S-15, the proposed amendments to the accord act, and the establishment of a national park reserve on Sable Island.
The board is an independent joint agency of the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia responsible for the regulation of petroleum activities in the Nova Scotia offshore area. It was established in 1990 pursuant to federal and provincial accord act legislation. The board's core regulatory responsibilities span a full life cycle of offshore activities, including resource assessments, exploration, development, production and abandonment. These responsibilities are aligned with the board's mandate, which encompasses health and safety of the offshore workers, protection of the environment, management and conservation of offshore petroleum resources, Canada-Nova Scotia employment and industrial benefits, issuance of licences for offshore exploration and development, and resource evaluation data collection curation and distribution. In carrying out its mandate, the board's decision-making process ensures that the health and safety of the offshore workers and the protection of the environment are paramount.
Sable Island has been the centre of oil and gas activity in Nova Scotia for over 50 years since offshore hydrocarbon exploration began in the 1960s. The first exploratory well offshore Nova Scotia was drilled from the middle of Sable Island in 1967. The region surrounding Sable Island is gas prone. To date, the board has made 23 significant discovery declarations offshore Nova Scotia, 8 of which have been declared commercial discoveries. With the exception of one, all discoveries are within 60 kilometres of Sable Island, 12 being within 20 kilometres.
From these commercial discoveries, over 1.8 trillion cubic feet, or 53 billion cubic metres, of natural gas have been produced from Sable Offshore Energy Project's five fields. The Cohasset-Panuke Project operated from 1992 to 1999 and produced a total of 44.5 million barrels or 7.1 million cubic metres of light oil. Deep Panuke, is set to start up this year with an anticipated total production volume of almost 900 billion cubic feet or 25 billion cubic metres of natural gas. Along with significant reserves already discovered and produced, the potential for additional discoveries in the area remains.
When companies explore for the development of these discoveries, the board enforces the environmental requirements ingrained in the applicable legislation and regulations. In addition to these requirements the board has made, the board has many environmental policies in place to further protect offshore Nova Scotia. For example, prior to issuing an exploration licence in offshore areas, the board conducts a strategic environmental assessment, SEA, to identify specific environmental issues that may exist within these areas. These issues must be addressed through further project SEAs, or the board could decide not to include certain areas in a call for bids or not to ultimately accept nominations or bids in this particular area.
In the Sable Island area, the board has in place additional mitigating measures to ensure environmental protection. All exploration licences surrounding Sable Island include specific terms and conditions prohibiting drilling from the surface of the island or within one nautical mile seaward of the low-water mark of the island. All other activities within one nautical mile of Sable Island for which the authorization is issued by the board require the operator to prepare a code of practice to ensure the protection of Sable Island. In the event of exploration resulting in subsequent commercial development and production, additional requirements are also imposed as part of the development plan approval.
When the board was first advised of the change in the status of Sable Island in November 2011, for clarity and simplicity the board approached the licence holders in the area who voluntarily agreed to amend the terms and conditions for the five significant discovery licences that encompass or are within the one nautical mile of the island. These significant discovery licences were issued prior to the board's being formed. They give the holders the rights for an indefinite term.
These amendments are similar to the terms and conditions I just referred to for the exploration licences. The board's decisions to amend these five significant discovery licences were fundamental decisions that received the approval of both the Minister of Natural Resources and the Nova Scotia Minister of Energy.
The board was actively involved in the task force established in accordance with the 2010 memorandum of understanding entitled The Establishment of a Federal Protected Area on Sable Island in the Province of Nova Scotia. Both the Minister of Natural Resources and the Nova Scotia Minister of Energy expressed appreciation for the board's participation on this task force. Board staff also participates in the Sable Island federal working group and the Sable Island Stakeholders Advisory Committee.
Sable Island is important not only as a petroleum resource but also as a vital emergency response. For years Sable Island has been a safe refuge for aviation and boating safety as well as for the evacuation of personnel from offshore platforms in the event of an emergency. A helicopter landing pad is maintained on Sable Island for search and rescue purposes and as an emergency landing location for offshore industry if required. We are pleased that Parks Canada will maintain the helicopter pad and allow operators to continue to use it in times of emergency.
The board supports the amendments to the Canada National Parks Act designating Sable Island as a natural park reserve and the resulting amendments to the accord acts. The amendments to the accord acts reflect board policy that has been in place for many years, providing stringent environmental protection of the island while ensuring access to subsurface petroleum resources. In keeping with the amendments, the board will implement a change to its operating procedures such that Parks Canada will be consulted as early as possible should any application be received to carry out low-impact or gas-related activities on Sable Island in the future.
The establishment of this reserve is an example of government, industry and regulator cooperating to achieve a common goal: the protection of Sable Island. The board's strict adherence to its mandated responsibility for the health and safety of offshore workers and the protection of the environment will continue not only for the Sable Island area but also for all the Nova Scotia offshore area.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the board's perspective on this matter. I apologize that I could not be there in person, but my colleague Stuart Pinks is there to answer your questions.
Senator Massicotte: Minister, you represent the people in your area. Are they in agreement with the proposed act as worded?
Mr. Preyra: It would be a stretch to say that everyone is in agreement, but there is widespread support for this bill. When it was first announced, there was a great deal of opposition to it because people did not want Sable Island touched. They were saying, "Keep your hands off Sable Island." After a number of public meetings, they realized that the status quo endangered Sable Island as the Canadian Coast Guard retreated and it became possible for more people to visit Sable Island. They developed the sense that we need to put in additional protections. Today, there is widespread consensus that this bill is a step in the right direction.
I know CPAWS was here earlier, and it has been one of the strongest supporters of this bill. Of course, there will always be people who will want something else and something more, and we understand that that is part of the political process. However, there has been widespread consensus, and, at the moment, we have no organized opposition to the bill.
Senator Massicotte: For those most vocally against it, what is it they do not like about it?
Mr. Preyra: I think Sable Island has a place in the consciousness of Nova Scotians and Canadians that far outstrips the two people who live on the island. There is a sense that this is a beautiful place that has been passed on to us from previous generations, and it is our obligation to carry it through to future generations. We do not want to do anything that endangers the status quo. That is what those opposing this feel, and I think we share that feeling with them. The question is this: Do we have the protections in place now to accomplish that goal? I think the two levels of government and most of the activists and stakeholders in the field have come to the conclusion that we do need additional protection. It is really an act of faith and belief that Parks Canada and the National Parks Act offer the best protection for what we want to accomplish. We want to put in place measures that will underline and strengthen that faith.
Senator Massicotte: There are amendments to the proposed act allowing, without prejudice, possible claims by the Aboriginal community. Are they happy with the amendments and with the proposed act, as a consequence?
Mr. Preyra: There has been significant consultation with the Mi'kmaq. We have letters of support for the measure from the Mi'kmaq chiefs as well. The designation of the park as a reserve is a standard clause that is put into agreements when there are outstanding claims. Once those claims are resolved, we will lift it. However, there is the Nova Scotia process that is being used in these consultations, and there is no opposition to this bill in the Mi'kmaq community.
Senator Massicotte: Chair, are we receiving, as witnesses on this, the Aboriginal community?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator MacDonald: I will speak to the minister for a second and then perhaps to Mr. Pinks.
It is interesting that we all have a romantic vision of Sable Island. I am no different. I want to remind people that, for centuries, Sable Island was a great killer. It was the graveyard of the Atlantic. Thousands of lives were lost there before science and technology, radar and the things that the modern sailor now has to avoid Sable Island. Sable Island is not just a small sand bar out in the middle of North Atlantic; there are huge sand banks around it. Ships were always found around Sable Island. We can be a little more romantic about it today.
The other thing I want to mention is that you have been bequeathed with the responsibility for Sable Island, as the MLA for Halifax Citadel. I just want people to know that Sable Island is about 290 kilometres southeast of Halifax but about 175 kilometres southeast of Canso.
Mr. Preyra: I see where you are going with this. Everyone wants to claim it.
Senator MacDonald: I just want to make the point that it is attached to Halifax because things in Nova Scotia tend to be Halifax-centric at times.
In any event, we are going to preserve Sable Island as a national park. I think that, among most people, there is a great consensus on that, but we all know that access to Sable Island is already severely restricted. For the most part, you have to go to the Coast Guard if you want to go there. Now, it will take on a new role. In this new role as a national park, how do you see the role of the province from now into the future? What sort of relationship would we take forward with Parks Canada and the federal government from the Nova Scotia perspective?
Mr. Preyra: Nova Scotia is very interested in the scientific research and the human presence on the island and the question of developing the management plan. I think we have a really good working relationship with Parks Canada. We have had a great relationship with the Coast Guard, and we will just continue that relationship. The next step in this will be the establishment of that management plan. Parks Canada has been a very good partner in terms of the process by which this agreement was developed and the consultations that led up to it. Literally hundreds of groups are watching this agreement. There was a stakeholder group that met regularly with Parks Canada. I think we envisage that as a similar type of process of consultation.
Senator MacDonald: Maybe a question or two for Mr. Pinks. Thank you very much for being here; it is great to see you. Like a lot of Nova Scotians, I want to ensure that we maintain the ability to extract whatever wealth we can from the Sable Island basin. It is very important for the province. The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board is supportive of this legislation, and I am supportive of it. However, I do have a few questions with regard to some of the restrictions or the conditions that are being attached. Could you explain the difference between exploratory drilling and petroleum exploration activities, such as seismic programs, and how they differ in terms of application?
Stuart Pinks, Chief Executive Officer, Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (CNSOPB): Exploration activities, when it comes to oil and gas, are fairly broad. Exploratory drilling is one aspect of exploration, but companies typically, because exploration drilling is so expensive to undertake, undertake a significant amount of exploration activity, such as seismic acquisition, aeromagnetic surveys and geochemical surveys. They are trying to collect geoscientific information that allows them to map the geology in the area they are interested in exploring. By mapping and understanding that geology, the geophysicists can identify areas where hydrocarbons might be trapped. It is in those areas that a company might decide to invest the millions of dollars to undertake exploratory drilling to actually prove whether there are hydrocarbons there or not.
Senator MacDonald: If you can no longer conduct exploratory or extractive petroleum drilling on the island, why would it be necessary to do low-impact seismic work from the island?
Mr. Pinks: Building on what I said earlier, in order to understand the reservoir that might exist under Sable Island and the geology that exists around Sable Island, when companies conduct seismic activity and collect seismic data, they have to collect it over a large regional area to fully understand and explain what they are seeing in the sub-basin. If you omit certain areas from that survey, it degrades the quality and the reliability of the data you are looking at. Data was collected back in 1999 in that vicinity. It required actually conducting some seismic activity on the island itself.
Senator MacDonald: I have another quick question. As for the offshore licences that have been granted in the deeper water, how do you see their potential?
Mr. Pinks: The province undertook what they call a "Play Fairway Analysis" recently that was well supported by geoscientists from our board. The prospects for both oil and natural gas in the Nova Scotia offshore area are quite substantial. If you talk to both BP and Shell, who have recently acquired licences in the deep water, based on the money they have committed to spending in Nova Scotia, they are very confident that there are significant reserves there.
Senator Seidman: I guess my question really is with regard to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, so that would be you, Mr. Brownlow, and your representative, Mr. Pinks, who will, I presume, answer the question.
You talked about the fact that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board will be responsible for vetting applications for licences to drill horizontally, for example, below the island. You talked a bit about the general process for applications and then the specific process for Sable Island. However, what I would really like is if you could elaborate on the specifics of the applications and what exactly the process would be.
Mr. Pinks: The regulatory regime that we have in place is a permissive regime. In other words, no one can undertake any oil and gas activity in the offshore, including the Sable Island area, without the express authorization of the board.
A company that is interested in undertaking exploration — and that might include directional drilling — would have to make application to our board, and our board would have to be satisfied with the content of the information and all of the surveys that we would do before an authorization would be granted. A significant amount of information is provided or obtained in that application process.
First, they would have to give us the full technical details of the activities or the operations they will conduct, including justification for the need to undertake the activity. If they wanted to directionally drill under the island, they would have to demonstrate to us that it is necessary in order to gain access to reserves that they believe they want to produce.
They would have to address things like timing and schedule, taking into account environmental considerations. For example, there are certain times of the year where for fish habitat there are breeding grounds, mammals have certain breeding times, birds have nesting times on the islands, things like that. They would have to demonstrate that they would undertake them at a time when it would have minimal impact on those types of environmental considerations.
A full-fledged environmental assessment would be required before any activity can be undertaken. If it is a project that triggers the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, it would be done in accordance with that act, and we would work with CEAA to see that assessment through.
If it did not trigger CEAA, our board, under the accord acts, would still require an environmental assessment, and the processes we have in place basically mirror the CEAA processes. Whether it triggers CEAA or not, there is still a full-fledged environmental assessment that would need to identify any environmental risks, and it would have to identify how it would mitigate those risks or avoid those risks altogether.
A number of other documents are required, such as a safety plan to demonstrate to the board that the activities can be undertaken safely. An environmental protection plan would build on that environmental assessment and demonstrate to the board's satisfaction how they will protect the environment from start to finish.
With respect to any activities that would be conducted on the island or within one nautical mile around the island, we require a specific code of practice that would set forth exactly how they would deal with that work in that area and how they would protect the environment specific to Sable Island and its one-nautical-mile ring.
We would require an environmental monitoring plan for any development projects and for any work on Sable Island or around Sable Island. That would be to confirm that the assumptions that were made in the environmental assessment were valid and would confirm that all the mitigation that it is being committed to is implemented and being followed up on.
Also, they have to provide emergency response plans to us: how they would respond in an emergency, contingency plans if things should go wrong and, importantly, a spill response plan should there be any spill of hydrocarbons.
They also have to post financial security. Financial security is to backstop: If they had a spill and they failed to clean it up appropriately, the board would have access to money to make sure that was taken care of.
Two final things: If it is a drilling installation, or a production installation, there has to be a certificate of fitness issued by a certifying authority attesting that the facility or installation can operate safely without polluting the environment, and a senior official from the operator who is applying has to provide a declaration of operator attesting to exactly the same thing.
It sounds rigorous. It is rigorous. Some of these steps, depending on the technical complexity of the program, can take several months to work through, especially when you get into significant environmental assessments, but it is not until the board is fully satisfied that a program can be carried out safely without polluting the environment that they will be given an authorization. We would then follow that up with a monitoring program using environmental, conservation and safety officers from the board.
Senator Seidman: I really appreciate that answer, and you have really covered all the bases. The thing I really was listening for was the mitigation of risk and the safety and emergency response plans so that you vet carefully, if there should be some problem, what the emergency response plan would be and who the responders would be; in other words, a serious protocol to deal with safety and any kind of spill issue — that is all there — and posting financial security and monitoring once they are actually engaged. You mentioned that there is monitoring.
Mr. Pinks: Yes. Monitoring would be required of the operator, and we would also have officers who would receive daily reports and would visit operations while they are being conducted to assure compliance.
Senator Seidman: There is a protocol for the monitoring process once this begins?
Mr. Pinks: Yes.
Senator Seidman: What if something is not what it should be?
Mr. Pinks: If something is not what it should be, we have an enforcement policy and procedure in place. Our officers can issue orders to correct certain situations. In extreme events we can prosecute and have successfully prosecuted in Nova Scotia for a spill.
Senator Wallace: Mr. Brownlow, the minister, in his presentation, reminded us — and I think Senator MacDonald touched upon this — that the change in the legislation would allow some activities to take place on the island, and they are referred to as low-impact petroleum exploration activities. My understanding is the bill does not define what "low- impact activities" would include.
Minister, I believe you referred, as an example, to seismic work, which sounds rather benign and I am sure would have no impact on the island.
Mr. Brownlow, from your experience with the offshore, what other types of activity would you indicate would be categorized as being low-impact? In approving this, what is the actual kind of work, other than seismic, that could take place on the island?
Mr. Pinks: If you want to turn to page 3 of our Q and A piece, some of that information is there.
Mr. Brownlow: Mr. Pinks, if you do not mind.
Mr. Pinks: The low-impact activities allowed to take place on the island are defined in Bill S-15. They are seismic, geological or geophysical programs. Seismic is what we have talked about. It is basically emitting a sound source that, if it was done on the island, would travel down through the sand, down through the rock formations, and some of the sound or energy waves are actually reflected back up. There are listening devices that will pick that up. That data is then analyzed and interpreted by people a lot smarter than I am: We call them squiggly line guys.
There are other types of surveys one could do. There are electromagnetic type surveys where you are looking for magnetic fields, and this interpretation will assist in further interpreting seismic. There are aeromagnetic surveys, which is flying a plane above the island, again looking at the magnetic field. You may collect some core samples to understand the structure of the sand so you can understand some of the geology in the area. As described, they are low- impact, low-risk activities from an environmental perspective.
Senator Wallace: I was not aware of this, and the minister mentioned that there is fresh water on the island. There is life on the island, and, obviously, it would require fresh water. The fresh water ponds are sourced by what you referred to, minister, as freshwater lenses that are beneath the surface. Is there any risk that horizontal drilling could somehow interfere with that freshwater source, which is obviously critical to life on the island?
Mr. Preyra: As far as I know, no. The biggest risk is through storms. The waves wash over, and there is a salination process and they shift. Those ponds themselves have shifted over time, and that is part of the natural process. As far as I know, the horizontal drilling underneath the island poses no risk.
I also want to comment on the low-risk activities as well. They, too, are subject to discussions at the Canada-Nova Scotia committee and discussions with the offshore board and Parks Canada. That, too, is part of that calculation. The general principle is that they be non-intrusive, passive, low-risk activities, not exploration in the sense of what most of us understand exploration to be.
Senator Wallace: Mr. Pinks, would you have any comment to make on that, that we can rest assured horizontal drilling would not interfere with the natural water source on the island?
Mr. Pinks: The hydrocarbon resources that people would be looking to extract are upwards of several thousand metres below the surface.
Senator Wallace: They are well below groundwater level.
As you pointed out, all applications for horizontal drilling would require a strategic environmental assessment, so would any issue someone may have concerning groundwater or any other aspect of the island be dealt with in that environmental assessment?
Mr. Pinks: Yes. There are actually two levels of environmental assessments that are done. One is the strategic environmental assessment. That is done typically before the board goes out and issues a call for bids for exploration licences, or when we get nominations by industry to explore in a certain area. We would undertake a strategic environmental assessment to understand, from the big picture, what the environmental issues are, so that we can make a decision as to whether we should issue a licence in this area.
We would then also advise those who pick up the licence or are interested in the licence of the specific environmental things they would have to study in a project-specific environmental assessment, which gets into much more detail. There are two levels of environmental assessment done ahead of activity being conducted.
Senator Wallace: Once again, your board is composed of representation from both the federal and the provincial governments?
Mr. Pinks: Correct.
Senator Wallace: It is supported by the environmental departments of each.
Mr. Pinks: We report to the Minister of Natural Resources federally and to the Minister of Energy provincially. However, we have good working relationships, obviously, with both levels of government.
Where environmental issues come up, we will often be in discussion in Ottawa with CEAA, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Environment Canada. We have had discussions with the Nova Scotia Environment with the province, given the Sable Island ownership issue with respect to Nova Scotia.
Mr. Preyra: We have an active community of scientists and researchers who spend a lot of time on the island. There are a lot of Sable watchers. It would be hard to do anything without people noticing. That is why this question of a human presence on the island is important to us.
Mr. Pinks: There is one other important point. Regarding the authorization process, one thing we are changing is our procedures to incorporate the requirement to consult and to consider the advice of Parks Canada, if there is any work to be done on the island at any time. Based on advice we receive from Parks Canada, if there are specific concerns, we can address those through terms and conditions on the authorization that we issue. We can require that certain mitigating measures be implemented through a term and condition. The working relationship with Parks Canada will be important so we can consider that advice and take it into account when considering authorizations.
Senator Patterson: I would like to thank the presenters and say that I am quite impressed that we have in this bill a reflection of cooperation between the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and Parks Canada, the province and industry. There is a task force, and it seems a balance has been struck.
I was particularly impressed that the industry has voluntarily agreed, as you said, Mr. Brownlow, to amend the terms and conditions for the five significant discovery licences within one nautical mile of the island. I thought of it as surrender, but you used the word "amend." I believe they substantially withdrew from those licences, if I understand it correctly.
We received a presentation earlier today at this meeting from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, whose objects I understand and respect, and they are very good at advancing an agenda of conservation and protection. They were quite concerned, if I may paraphrase, that allowing low-impact oil and gas exploration and drilling horizontally under the island was at least for one reason not recommended because of the precedent that this does not happen in any other national park.
To get to my question — and sorry for the preamble — CPAWS has recommended that we amend the bill to not allow low-impact oil and gas exploration, not allow exploration activity of any kind on the island, and prohibit horizontal drilling under the island. I respect them for making those suggestions, but I would like to ask you the following: If this committee were to accept those recommendations, given that you have come up with a compromise with balance, where, presumably, there has been some give and take, what impact might that have on the balance that has been achieved if the Senate, in its wisdom, said that these limited exploration and drilling activities, which you have explained the board would closely regulate, were not to be allowed? Would we have to go back to the start again with industry? I am wondering about the impacts of accepting those recommendations, if you would have any comments on that, please.
Mr. Preyra: Thank you for that question, Senator Patterson. There have been discussions on this very issue since 2009 between the two levels of government and other industry representatives and stakeholders there. A memorandum of understanding was signed in 2010 to create a task force. The task force went out and consulted widely. Both governments accepted that agreement in October 2011 in terms of the terms of the park establishment. This is an important building block for the agreement itself. In a way, it is a deal breaker, or at least it sets us back to square one.
There is a balancing of interests between the interests of Canada and Nova Scotia between the various exploring groups there, the amendment of the five significant discovery licences. All of those things, I think, would have to be reviewed, and I am not sure where that would leave us, but I think that would be a fundamental change in the agreement itself.
Mr. Pinks: Maybe I can add to that. In your introductory comments to the question, you made note that industry voluntarily gave up their right to be able to drill on the island itself. I think industry recognizes the importance of Sable Island and recognizes that protection of the island is absolutely paramount, and that is the reason they voluntarily gave up that right. They do believe that they can continue with their activities and even extract from below the island without any impact on the island.
I could point to a couple of things. In the seismic program that was done back in 1999 by Mobil, there was an environmental monitoring program in place. A report was put together. It was co-authored by Zoe Lucas, one of the two residents and sort of the environmental protector of Sable Island, if you will. The conclusion she came to is that, in general, the program had limited and short-term impact on Sable Island. She was quite complimentary about the code of practice that was put in place to protect the island and that it was executed. There were a few hiccups, a few learnings, but nothing really untoward. In general, she concluded that the program had limited and short-term impact. I think that says that with things like seismic, if done correctly, you do not have to be concerned about them.
With respect to drilling underneath Sable Island, I was listening to the questions asked of CPAWS in the first session. A couple of senators asked, "What is the risk of drilling under the island?" She was not able to identify that other than to say it is just not allowed in other parks or other jurisdictions. Certainly, when we have looked at it, we do not see an issue that would prevent someone from being able to drill under the island successfully without causing any undue harm to the island itself if the appropriate monitoring programs and mitigation are put in place.
Senator Ringuette: What is the approximate size of Sable Island? How big is that island?
Mr. Preyra: It is about 40 square kilometres.
Senator Ringuette: Let us put it in miles, so we will have a standard here.
Senator MacDonald: It is 30 miles long and a mile wide.
Mr. Preyra: Say 30 square miles.
Senator Ringuette: I want to make sure I understand your answer to Senator MacDonald. It is 170 nautical miles from Nova Scotia?
Senator MacDonald: It is 175 kilometres from Canso and about 295 kilometres from Halifax, right south of the eastern tip of the mainland.
Senator Ringuette: That would be how close to international waters?
Mr. Preyra: I am sorry. I cannot answer that question because I do not know where the international boundary is. It is not that far away. It is within the 200 kilometres. It is not that far away.
Senator Ringuette: I was carefully listening to your comments, to the questions, to your statement, and I was reviewing what was proposed as an amendment by CPAWS. I would kind of agree with CPAWS. With the geography and the distance that you have to work with with regard to drilling, whether straightforward or horizontally, you have 250 nautical miles off Nova Scotia before reaching the international waters. Coming from small New Brunswick, I would say that space is pretty big. What is so important on this very small piece of island out in the middle of the sea that you would want to protect drilling underneath the island? What is so important there? It is just a very little piece of island in that sea.
Mr. Preyra: Before I pass this question on, what we want to protect is Sable Island.
Senator Ringuette: I know, but if you really want to protect Sable Island, then you would have to agree with the amendment that CPAWS is looking at, no drilling or exploration. Yet, you are saying it is okay to drill under the island, even though you have this entire sea to drill.
Mr. Preyra: We would not support any change that would undermine the integrity of Sable Island. The issue really is that that exists now. That can happen now. The protections that Mr. Pinks talked about were additional protections. The danger is that without those protections, we would be in a worse situation. This is not creating a new power for the companies that are out there. In many ways, this restricts their ability to do what they can do now.
Senator Ringuette: That leads to my next question. You indicate that they have the ability now to drill on the island. Mr. Pinks said earlier that industry voluntarily removed themselves from their right to drill on the island.
Mr. Pinks: Drill on the island.
Senator Ringuette: Who is telling the current reality right now?
Mr. Pinks: The current reality right now is there is a prohibition from drilling on the island, on the surface of the island and within one nautical mile around the island. Once you move away past that one nautical mile, then that provision falls to the wayside. If you want to access hydrocarbon resources under the island, you would have to drill from at least one kilometre away — or sorry, one nautical mile away.
Senator Ringuette: Currently?
Mr. Pinks: Currently. This bill in a lot of cases is engraining policy that our board has had in place for quite a number of years.
Senator Ringuette: What did you mean exactly when you said industry voluntarily removes the right?
Mr. Pinks: They had exploration licences and significant discovery licences on the island. We went back to them and had additional terms and conditions put into those licences prohibiting drilling from the island itself and within one nautical mile.
Could I go back to your previous question, though, on this being just a little sliver of land out in the ocean and why is it so important to protect the resources?
Senator Ringuette: Protect the resources, but to allow drilling.
Mr. Pinks: To allow drilling to access the resources. If you look back at Mr. Brownlow's introductory statements, the Sable Island area is gas prone. There have been 23 significant discoveries offshore Nova Scotia, eight of which have been declared commercial discoveries, and 12 of those are within 20 kilometres of Sable Island. If you look at the reserves under Sable Island itself, we estimate there could be upwards of about 250 billion cubic feet of natural gas that is recoverable and about 15 million barrels of light oil. At today's dollar figures for the barrel of oil and a MCF of gas, you are looking at an economic value of about $2.4 billion underneath Sable Island.
Senator Ringuette: You already know what the potential is under the island.
Mr. Pinks: We have a reasonable estimate of what is under the island. It only gets proven if you were actually to drill in and to start to produce.
Senator Ringuette: The bottom line is that the industry said that they will not drill vertically, but they will drill horizontally to get to the resources?
Mr. Pinks: They have not said they will drill. Even though I have indicated the dollar figure, with today's technology and the cost of actually drilling and producing, these fields under Sable Island are marginal or less than marginal, at today's oil and gas prices and today's cost of development. That does not mean that they will not be economic at some point in the future, but the industry retains the right to be able to access those through their significant discovery licences at some point in the future.
Senator Ringuette: I have one last question. Just to put all of this in a certain perspective, as I said earlier, you have 250 miles before international waters — so from the coast of Nova Scotia to 250 miles — that is not currently explored. What are the surveys indicating to you with regard to the potential outside of Sable Island?
Mr. Pinks: As I mentioned earlier, a study was done on hydrocarbon "prospectivity" that runs from the west of Sable Island, to the east, and a bit to the north and south. There is quite a corridor of potential —
Senator Ringuette: Put it in miles so we will have the right perspective, please.
Mr. Pinks: Several hundred kilometres in length and probably 100 kilometres in width. However, there are pockets of hydrocarbon prospectivity. Sable Island happens to be highly prolific when it comes to hydrocarbon prospectivity, so that is one of the areas that is hydrocarbon-prospective. There are other areas out there that are hydrocarbon- prospective as well, and we talked earlier about Shell's licences and BP's recent licences, which are in the deep water, so not immediately adjacent to Sable Island.
Senator Ringuette: This brings us back to the crux of the issue, from my perspective, which is that Parliament enacts legislation on a daily basis. There seems to be no hurry with regard to the exploration or the horizontal drilling under Sable Island, so why not get the socially and environmentally concerned people on board? For the time being, there is no exploration under the island, so why not agree to remove, and agree with the amending wording of clause 6? You have quite a big sea there.
Mr. Preyra: In many ways, this is an opportunity for us. It is a good moment for us to enact this legislation because we do not know what the future will bring. It may well be that you will find a significant deposit under there and people will say, "Hold on. We will not do that anymore. We are going to start drilling closer."
At the moment, because it is economically not as viable and because there are other opportunities to get gas in other parts of Canada and other parts of the world, and there are other techniques, as you know, that are more problematic, this is an opportunity to do it now, before it becomes more attractive.
I should say that the environmental groups almost unanimously agree with protecting Sable Island in this way. There are differences of opinion about whether it should be one, two or three miles out, but there is not a debate about the need to do something now.
Mr. Pinks: They were unable to express a concern as to what the environmental impact would be of horizontal drilling under the island. They just said they just do not like the idea. If they were to offer some opinion as to why they felt that way, from a technical perspective, I could probably respond better.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you for all the time you spent with us. I am sorry that I was late. I had to be in the Senate chamber.
I have a quick question with respect to horizontal drilling. Is there some policy limit or technological limit or limit imposed by fact that the gas is at some depth that defines the limit of the shallowness of the horizontal drilling line; that is to say, if it is two inches below the surface, it is more problematic than if it is two kilometres below the surface?
Mr. Pinks: My understanding is that, with the restriction that is in place and that would be ingrained in this bill requiring any directional drilling to be done from outside the one-mile-nautical ring that goes around the island, based on the location of the reserves, the oil companies have the technology to be able to do that safely today.
Senator Mitchell: How deep do they have to go?
Mr. Pinks: It depends on the target, the fields. I do not have the depth of the fields.
Senator Mitchell: This is not just metres; they will be going down a long way before they turn sideways?
Mr. Pinks: It would be kilometres, or at least 1.6 kilometres away from the island, to start with. Horizontal drilling has been around for a long time and successfully done in many parts of the world.
Senator Mitchell: What depth does it start to be horizontal? If it is too shallow, it is a problem.
Mr. Pinks: If it is too shallow, it is a problem.
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister, for being here. It was good to listen to you. Thank you, Mr. Pinks and Mr. Brownlow, for attending. We appreciate very much your presentations and answering the questions that everyone had. With that, I will adjourn the meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)