Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 31 - Evidence - June 22, 2015
OTTAWA, Monday, June 22, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which were referred Bill C- 61, An Act to amend the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act; Bill C-72, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act; and Bill C-64, An act to amend the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, met this day at 3:42 p.m. to give consideration to the bills.
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 this 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. As a reminder to those watching, these committee hearings are open to the public and are also available via webcast on the sen.parl.gc.ca website. You can find more information on the schedule of witnesses on the website under "Senate Committees.''
I would now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves, and I will begin by introducing the deputy chair to my right, Senator Paul Massicotte from Quebec.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald from Nova Scotia.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak from Ontario.
Senator Day: Joseph Day, Saint John—Kennebecasis, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Good afternoon. My name is Pierrette Ringuette and I am a senator from New Brunswick.
[English]
The Chair: I would like to introduce our staff begin with the clerk, Lynn Gordon, and our Library of Parliament analyst, Marc LeBlanc.
We will begin with Bill C-61. Today it gives me great pleasure to welcome, from Parks Canada, Alan Latourelle, Chief Executive Officer; Rob Prosper, VP, Protected Areas Establishment & Conservations; and Kevin McNamee, Director, Parks Establishment; and from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Eric Hébert-Daly, Executive Director.
Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today.
Mr. Latourelle, I believe you have some opening remarks, followed by Mr. Hébert-Daly. We will then open the floor to questions and answers.
Alan Latourelle, Chief Executive Officer, Parks Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-61, the Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Areas Act. In the 2013 Throne Speech, the government committed to protecting Canada's rich natural heritage through the new National Conservation Plan that would increase protected areas, focusing on stronger marine and coastal conservation. Bill C-61 is a significant action towards this commitment.
Marine protected areas are increasingly regarded as both valuable conservation tools and an important catalyst for economic development. They protect plants, animals and habitats. They improve the health of ecosystems and their ability to withstand stress. They also support a range of shore and water-based recreational and interpretive activities that ensure people develop and maintain strong connections to our oceans and maritime heritage.
[Translation]
Mr. Latourelle: According to a 2011 report, in 2008-09, Parks Canada spent $5 million on our National Marine Conservation Areas program, which at that time, had only two operating areas. Spending by visitors at these two sites was estimated at $189.6 million in 2009. Nationally, these two sites produced a GDP impact of $142.7 million, of which $88.9 million was paid to labour, generating the equivalent of 2,300 full-time jobs and producing tax revenues of over $10 million.
Mr. Chair, since that study, Parliament created the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve and Haida Heritage Site in 2010, and should Bill C-61 pass, the Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area. We can only conclude that with a doubling of Parks Canada's marine sites, there will be an even greater economic return.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, in October 2007, Canada and Ontario signed an agreement to designate a 10,000 square kilometre national marine conservation area in Lake Superior. The agreement set the terms and conditions for Ontario to transfer the lakebed and islands to Canada for protection, for all time, under Canada's National Marine Conservation Areas Act. At the same time, Canada and the Northern Superior First Nations signed an agreement to collaborate on an effective plan for defining the role of First Nations in protecting and interpreting the Aboriginal cultural heritage of the area.
The amendments to the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act contained in Bill C-61 accomplish two things. First, they confirm that the Ontario government will continue to retain jurisdiction over the administration and management of water transfer and water taking within national marine conservation areas established in the Great Lakes of Ontario, including Lake Superior. This part of the bill will take effect once Bill C-61 receives Royal Assent. Second, Bill C-61 will also formally establish, at some future date, the Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area by adding a description of its boundary to Schedule 1 of the act.
Under the 2007 establishment agreement with Ontario, Canada agreed that Ontario would retain jurisdiction over the taking and transfer of water within all marine conservation areas established in Ontario. Moreover, the agreement confirmed that Ontario would not transfer the lands to the Lake Superior site until the appropriate measures are implemented confirming Ontario's continuing jurisdiction in these matters. Bill C-61 is that measure.
Currently within the Lake Superior national marine conservation area boundary, Ontario has five water permits that allow three municipalities, one pulp mill and a golf course to extract water from Lake Superior. These permits represent a very small fraction of water extracted from the lake. The critical point is that legislative amendments to the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act confirm that Ontario will retain its jurisdiction over the water management within the Great Lakes marine conservation areas and must be passed before Ontario will transfer the lakebed and islands to Canada for the Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area.
Once Parliament passes Bill C-61, the water-taking amendments contained in clauses 2 and 3 come into force. At that time, Ontario will transfer to Canada the lakebed and islands described in clause 4. Once this process is completed, the lands will be officially protected under the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act by an order-in- council, as stipulated in clause 5.
Mr. Chairman, with the passage of Bill C-61, Parks Canada will be in a position to invest $36 million over the coming years in the establishment and development of operations of Canada's newest national marine conservation area. We will be able to complement and implement our agreements with the Northern Superior First Nations and Ontario Metis Nation, and begin to more fully invest in local communities so that we can welcome the world to Lake Superior.
Thank you and it would be a pleasure to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you.
We will now go to Mr. Hébert-Daly for his remarks.
Eric Hébert-Daly, Executive Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society: Thank you very much.
Members of the Senate, it is an honour to be present here with you to discuss Bill C-61. CPAWS is very supportive of the speedy passage of this bill. In fact, we're so enthusiastic that I will keep my comments very short.
I hesitated in accepting the invitation to appear before you today because I didn't want to get in the way of getting this bill and the other two bills you will be considering today passed in this session, especially in the few remaining days left. Both of these projects have been in the works for many years, are sound conservation initiatives and are the product of immense discussion and negotiation.
The CPAWS Wildlands League was involved in the early work to establish a marine protected area at Lake Superior back in the 1970s and early 1980s. The first mention of this proposed protected area was in Wilderness Now, a 1980 publication of the CPAWS Wildlands League.
In recent years, I really need to highlight the important work of WWF Canada, particularly in the 10-year lead-up to the federal-provincial agreement signed in 2007. Also, I need to highlight the incredible support of Parks Canada over that period of time in creating and managing the park since then. Their concentrated efforts, combined with the solid cooperation of First Nations and anglers, were crucial in getting this area conserved.
The NMCA in Lake Superior will be more than 10,000 square kilometres of protected freshwater, the largest in the world. While adopting this legislation is a critical step, this area has been managed by Parks Canada since 2007. The legislation will finally give this area the formal status of an NMCA. It is already accounted for in the national totals of protected areas in Canada, but the adoption of this legislation is the final and long-overdue step.
With more than 70 species of fish, some of the most stunning islands and coastlines in the country, the northern part of Lake Superior is a logical and ideal place for a marine conservation area. This region is a key flyway for thousands of migratory birds.
What might surprise you is that this freshwater protected area will also help key caribou habitat. There are places and pieces of shoreline and islands within the boundaries of this conservation area that have been used by woodland caribou over the centuries. This will help the species' recovery efforts currently under way under the Species at Risk Act.
The fact that this legislation received unanimous approval by the House of Commons speaks to the consensus that has been built around this conservation outcome. I urge the Senate to give this legislation the same speedy and unanimous passage.
Thank you for considering this in such a contracted timeline.
The Chair: Thank you very much for those remarks.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Thank you for joining us today. This is an important piece of legislation for future generations of Canadians.
Mr. Latourelle, I'd like you to confirm something for me. The agreement with the province is one of the reasons for the delay, but there's also an agreement with the Aboriginal community as well as the Metis community. How can we be sure that the agreement includes all the communities and not just a few of them?
Mr. Latourelle: When we signed the agreement in 2007, we also signed a cooperation agreement with First Nations, setting out a variety of objectives and commitments in terms of jobs and participation. We've put together and are currently negotiating the last phases of the detailed agreement. The framework agreement, however, with First Nations was signed in 2007. We also consulted with Metis communities.
Senator Massicotte: There have been many delays. In terms of the timeline and all the efforts that have been made, why has it taken so long? Why has it been so difficult? What was so hard to negotiate? Is there something contentious in the bill, an issue that's been problematic?
Mr. Latourelle: Honestly, no. There's nothing contentious. The challenge stems from the fact that we were negotiating and consulting with a number of First Nations communities and we wanted to make sure we were as respectful as possible in our approach. The delay was due to those negotiations and discussions with Aboriginal communities.
Senator Massicotte: Despite the delay, then, everyone is on board, including the Aboriginal communities.
Mr. Latourelle: We are in the midst of finalizing an agreement with them.
Senator Massicotte: Given the nature of the region, which is quite impressive from a historical standpoint, why was this surface area chosen specifically? Why wasn't a bigger or smaller surface area selected? Why only the northern and not the southern portion?
Mr. Latourelle: I'm going to ask Mr. McNamee to answer that.
[English]
Kevin McNamee, Director, Parks Establishment, Parks Canada: Lake Superior was chosen because it came out of an international, binational program that looked at the steps that needed to be taken to protect Lake Superior. This program was done in the 1990s.
[Translation]
Then, Parks Canada divided the sea area and Great Lakes into 29 distinct regions in order to create a marine conservation area in each region. Lake Superior is one of those 29 regions. So it's possible to achieve two objectives in a single region.
[English]
Senator Ringuette: In April this committee looked into a Parks Canada bill to create a national urban park in the Greater Toronto Area. As we studied the bill, we were informed that the written agreement between the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada was not reflected in the bill that we were looking at. What guarantee can you provide to the committee that the agreement with the Government of Ontario for the creation of this park reflects what we have in the bill before us?
Mr. Latourelle: I'll put two perspectives on it. I will speak for this bill and for the Rouge. The bill in respect of the Rouge presented to the Senate met the requirements we had for Ontario, but Ontario had a different perspective. I'll use a practical example of some of the amendments they put forward. They wanted to change the vision, which is right in the agreement with Ontario for Rouge Park. I can tell you honestly that we meet our commitment to Ontario now in terms of the Rouge Park and the Rouge National Urban Part Act.
In terms of Lake Superior, there was a commitment to work with them in terms of understanding what they wanted as reassurance that they would still have jurisdiction over the water taking. They have seen the bill to make sure that basically we have their full support.
Senator Ringuette: That's a positive move with regard to reaching out and making sure that all stakeholders agree on a piece of legislation.
Mr. Latourelle: Exactly.
Senator MacDonald: I have three questions. Whoever feels they're best positioned to answer may do so.
When looking at the map, it's quite obvious that the western and southwestern boundary of this marine conservation area is artificially designed to accommodate the American border on Lake Superior. Have we discussed this with the Americans? Is there some sort of plan to accommodate on the other side of the border the same targets and agenda that we have on the Canadian side of Lake Superior?
Mr. Latourelle: I can confirm, senator, that we have discussions with our American colleagues. It's not only the Lake Superior national marine conservation area but also protected areas such as Pukaskwa National Park. We have regular discussions between our officials and officials from U.S. National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in terms of protected areas in the general area and collaboration amongst them. But I'm not aware on their side if they're planning a protected area.
Mr. Hébert-Daly: My understanding is that in fact there are plans for a protected area that will mirror probably not the size but the same sort of geographic area on the American side.
Senator MacDonald: I know there has been a lot of trouble with invasive species in the Great Lakes over the years, and I have always been under the assumption that the worst problems have been in the eastern Great Lakes. But is there a problem with invasive species in Lake Superior, and would this conservation area give us any sort of tool in order to deal with these problems?
Mr. McNamee: This is one of the issues that did come up during our consultations and establishment phase, that there are a number of invasive species. The national marine conservation area, in itself, will not solve all of these issues, but it certainly provides us with a measure to help to address those. For example, one of the things that we established under the 2007 establishment agreement is a harmonization agreement with Ontario, so there will be an opportunity to collaborate on dealing with a number of invasive species that have to be dealt with regardless of whether or not the national marine conservation area is established.
However, what Parks Canada can bring to this situation is experience that we have across the country in dealing both with species at risk and invasive species.
Senator MacDonald: As to the establishment of these latest areas, we're told here in our notes that we've gone from two to four. I'm just curious because I don't know: What are the first two and when were they established? In terms of criteria, is the overall management of these similar?
Mr. McNamee: The first area that we designated as a national marine conservation area is Fathom Five, which is up near the Bruce Peninsula. Subsequent to that, we also, under separate legislation, established jointly with Quebec the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park, the prime objective of which is to conserve and present the beluga whales.
The first area that was actually established under the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act because it came after those two was the Gwaii Haanas area that Mr. Latourelle mentioned earlier. Now we're adding Lake Superior, hopefully.
By and large, the conservation requirements are essentially the same. The one thing that we bring that other jurisdictions have not, or other departments do not, to other marine protected area programs is a strong emphasis on providing visitor experiences and interpreting that natural and cultural heritage so that Canadians do remain connected and improve their connection to nature, which is a fundamental goal of the National Conservation Plan.
Senator Seidman: There has been much discussion recently about the quality of water in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement required the development of lake-wide management plans to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem. How does the management plan for the Lake Superior national marine conservation area harmonize with lake-wide management plans?
Mr. McNamee: Thank you for the question, senator.
First of all, there currently is not a management plan. The act is very clear that once an area is established under the act, a management plan must be developed within five years. Nevertheless, we are currently working with Environment Canada on a number of areas of concern along Lake Superior. There are about three or four of them within the boundary that you see before you. So we have staff in the northern Ontario field unit that are collaborating with Environment Canada.
Of course, as we do develop the management plan, we will be consulting and working with the Government of Ontario and with other departments, such as Environment Canada, on an approach to ensure that we do harmonize our approach.
Senator Seidman: Thank you.
Senator Day: I was trying to catch up here with having looked at the maps. The map that I have here has — it looks like — Pays Plat, an area that's excluded. I'm just wondering why it's excluded. Is there a paper mill operating there or something? It's a dark blue.
Mr. McNamee: Senator, that's a good question because, under the 2007 agreement, one of the considerations that was built in was that should Pays Plat decide to proceed with a sewage treatment plant for the community, we would look at excising that area. You cannot put waste directly into a national marine conservation area, so we built a buffer. That's not to suggest that what's coming out of here is untreated sewage. Clearly, there are standards and conditions that must be met, but Canada and Ontario agreed that we would excise that small area.
Senator Day: So that will not be included in the ultimate description of the national marine conservation area.
Mr. McNamee: That's correct, senator.
Senator Day: There is another, described as aquatic buffer transfer areas. Is that in or out? That's just down around Thunder Bay, not far from Thunder Bay and the roads to Thunder Bay.
Mr. McNamee: Again, senator, you've caught a good detail in your quick review.
There are in fact several areas. There is a buffer around the Slate Islands, off to the eastern side, and then this buffer in this area that you just pointed to on the Sibley Peninsula. On top of that, there are two provincially protected areas, one a nature reserve and one a wilderness zone. Those are not currently included, but they will eventually be included. The reason they're not included is because Ontario has to go through a deregulation process that requires consultation on those specific changes in designation. So they will be added by a separate order-in-council, which we can do under the act at a future date.
Senator Day: My final question relates to the overall scheme of this. Certain laws of Ontario as they exist now and any amendments in the future will apply, including an environmental tribunal, a review tribunal. That's all under Ontario law.
That will apply not only to this particular Lake Superior location that we're discussing but to all other federal government national marine conservation areas in Ontario, wherever they might be located. This bill will apply, and the law will apply presumably once it's passed. Is that correct?
Mr. Latourelle: That is correct, but it's not for all departments. It's for national marine conservation area acts that are under the responsibility of Parks Canada. We wanted to avoid a situation where we get into negotiations, create a new marine protected area in Ontario and then have to make another amendment to the act. So we've looked at it from an Ontario-wide perspective in terms of efficiency and agreed with that.
Senator Day: Because we're creating this marine protected area in Lake Superior, normally we would have expected that whichever Ontario laws apply from time to time would only apply to that. But I think it's important for us all to understand that this law, if passed, will create Ontario laws that apply to other potential future and maybe existing marine protected areas.
Mr. Latourelle: Future national marine conservation areas only.
Senator Day: Do you have a precedent for this kind of situation where a provincial law is incorporated by a federal law?
Mr. McNamee? Help me with this, will you?
Mr. McNamee: I'm trying to think. There are a couple of examples in our national parks. For example, in Nunavut the management of wildlife is done under other authorities as per the Nunavut Land Claims Act. I can't quite recall all of them, but there are specific examples where we have done this before.
The important thing to stress is that in the creation of national marine conservation areas, Parliament was clear that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would remain the responsible authority for commercial fishing. The Department of Transport would remain responsible for transportation through a national marine conservation area. So in that sense the notion that some other department might have an authority other than our minister has in fact been built into our act by Parliament.
Senator Day: I don't have as much difficulty with that. It's just another silo of the federal government. But here we're talking about another legal jurisdiction, that being the Province of Ontario, having jurisdiction over certain water taking, et cetera, to authorize the removal of water or to prohibit it.
Mr. McNamee: It's a good question, senator. First of all, there are only five water-taking permits that exist, and when it comes to the amount of water, it is 0.00000015 per cent of Lake Superior, so it's a miniscule amount.
The second thing is that we did not want to create a situation on Lake Superior where if you were a community outside the NMCA you dealt with Ontario in terms of water taking, and if you were inside the national marine conservation area then you would have to deal with Parks Canada. We thought it best that there be one regulatory authority for something that only deals with five permits across Lake Superior, so we were comfortable with that arrangement.
Senator Day: Mr. McNamee, I would like one follow-up question on that. Ontario retains authority to issue other licences for water removal under this legislation. You talk about five now, but it might be 25 depending on the Government of Ontario, over which you will have no control. Is that correct?
Mr. McNamee: No control, but again I stress that we have a harmonization committee. There will be consultation with Parks Canada, so we will be able to follow that.
Mr. Latourelle: The point that's also important to note, senator, is that the lakebed and the islands are owned by Ontario. So that was a condition of Ontario to agree to transfer this 10,000 square kilometre lakebed and the islands.
Senator Day: Some of the islands go with this and some are excluded. That will all be defined in due course in Schedule 1. Is that correct?
Mr. McNamee: No, the islands that would be included in the national marine conservation area have in fact been defined. They are part of the schedule in the bill, and they are the areas coloured the dark green on the map that has been tabled with the committee.
Senator Day: The dark green ones in this coloured photo will be part of the protected area.
Mr. McNamee: Yes.
Senator Patterson: I want to welcome the witnesses. I have two questions.
In the 2012 Fall Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, on the subject of marine protected areas, the commissioner noted that an important part of managing marine protected areas is the ability to measure the results achieved against established objectives. I'm wondering if the witnesses from Parks Canada would have a comment on how they would be able to measure the results hoped for in this marine conservation area?
Rob Prosper, Vice President, Protected Areas Establishment & Conservations, Parks Canada: Thank you very much, senator, for the question.
Not unlike national parks, national marine conservation areas also look at the state of ecosystems. Marine conservation areas will have monitoring plans and guidelines to help determine the state of and changes to the ecosystems. Similarly to national parks, the park management planning process is used as a means of identifying the key ecological issues that a location may have and to identify courses of action to deal with those.
Senator Patterson: Very good, thank you.
The Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act says that before an amendment is made to Schedule 1, which we've got in this bill, through section 15, a report on the proposed marine conservation area should be tabled in Parliament and has to include, information on consultations, results of any assessments of mineral and energy resources, a management plan and any other relevant agreements. I take it that has been done. Is that correct?
Mr. McNamee: In this particular case, senator, no, and let me explain why.
Under the act there are two ways in which an area can be added to the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act schedule: either by a bill, which we are doing, or by an order-in-council. Through that order-in-council process there is no debate in the House of Commons or the Senate chambers. Instead the order-in-council along with the report that you just described is tabled with the relevant standing committee in the House of Commons and the Senate. You have 30 sitting days to consider it.
When the bill was being developed, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act was being developed. When we consulted with Parliament on the process, the concern was that if we did the OIC process, both committees felt that they should have a report that would provide them with information. So it's only required in the order-in- council process, which we are not doing here. We're using the bill process, which does not require a report. Instead you have the debate in both chambers.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for explaining that, and I'm glad we're having a bit of a debate here today.
The Chair: Thank you. We've concluded with Bill C-61 and we have the same witnesses for Bill C-72.
Mr. Latourelle, the floor is yours.
Mr. Latourelle: Mr. Chairman, what a great day. We have only 48 protected areas in Canada under the responsibility of Parks Canada, and we have two today. That is pretty amazing.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-72, the "Qausuittuq National Park of Canada Act.'' With me today are Rob and Kevin, who will also answer some questions.
Bill C-72 is the final step towards the government's 2013 Speech from the Throne commitment to complete its work to protect wilderness lands on Bathurst Island. It is also a significant step in implementing the National Conservation Plan announced by the Prime Minister in May 2014, with one of its goals being to increase Canada's protected areas. Bill C-72 will establish Qausuittuq as our nation's forty-fifth national park, increasing our national park system to 310,000 square kilometres — just over 3 per cent of Canada.
"Qausuittuq'' means "place where the sun doesn't rise'' in Inuktitut, in reference to the fact what the sun stays below the horizon for several months in the winter at this latitude. The park's name was chosen through a local community contest in Resolute.
The newest member of Parks Canada's world-class national park system is located in the western High Arctic. At slightly over 11,000 square kilometres, it is Canada's eleventh largest national park, larger than Jasper National Park. It protects for all time the northwestern part of Bathurst Island, several of the Governor Generals Islands, and several smaller islands west and north of Bathurst Island. A major objective of the park is to provide protection for the Peary caribou and its habitat. The closest Inuit community, Resolute, is located 200 kilometres to the southeast.
Mr. Chairman, the fact that this national park is being created in one of the harshest places on the planet, in a place that some describe as a "polar desert,'' does not diminish its biological importance. During the establishment phase, studies confirmed the importance of Bathurst Island to the persistence of both Peary caribou and muskoxen in the High Arctic. Bathurst Island may have held persistent populations of Peary caribou and muskox since the withdrawal of the ice sheets 8,000 years ago. For reasons that are not yet well understood, Bathurst Island and the adjacent Governor Generals are of critical importance to the long-term survival of both species.
The Qausuittuq national park of Canada bill is fairly straightforward. It proposes to amend Schedule 1 of the Canada National Parks Act by inserting a boundary description of the park. The boundary represents an important compromise. Studies during the establishment phase concluded that an area of high mineral potential coincided with part of the calving grounds of the Peary caribou. Together, the Mining Association of Canada and the Canadian Nature Federation, now Nature Canada, proposed that this area be excluded from the park, that the western boundary be moved further west and that the excluded area be provided interim protection from any mineral activities until the caribou population has recovered or its fate is otherwise determined.
Ultimately, this proposed boundary was adopted by the Governments of Canada and Nunavut as well as the Qikiqtani Inuit Association. In December 2014, the government put in place a five-year interim land withdrawal under the Territorial Lands Act that prohibits mineral exploration and development in the area to the east of the proposed national park boundary. During this time, a forum will be organized with the objective of creating a plan for the management of this area.
In January 2015, Canada and the Inuit signed an Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement, IIBA, agreeing to establish Qausuittuq national park. This is the formal national park establishment agreement reviewed and supported by the Government of Nunavut and consistent with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Inuit will maintain the right to free and unrestricted access to lands, waters and marine areas for the purpose of harvesting within the park.
In the IIBA, Canada and the Inuit agreed to several common goals that underline the collaborative relationship both parties have built over the years in managing a number of national parks in Nunavut. Inuit will participate in the planning, management and operation of the park through the Qausuittuq park management committee. Parks Canada will continue to recognize the importance of Inuit traditional knowledge for the park area and will use it in planning and operation of the park. Both parties agree to showcase the vitality of Inuit culture and the beauty and uniqueness of the High Arctic to all Canadians and the world.
In addition, Parks Canada will establish an office and a visitor centre in Resolute. The IIBA sets out provisions for preferential hiring of Inuit for park positions. Parks Canada will expend almost $22 million over seven years to establish and develop the park and $2.6 million annually thereafter to operate it.
Finally, Mr. Chair, we will not simply wait for visitors to show up. Parks Canada is working to boost visitation to our northern national parks by promoting iconic experiences. The goal is to provide must-see, once-in-a-lifetime, only- place-in-the-world natural and cultural tourism experiences. These are grounded in a compelling vision where tourists experience and learn about the North not only as a remote wilderness but also as an Aboriginal homeland viewed through Aboriginal eyes. It is an approach built on the skills, knowledge and welcoming spirit of Aboriginal peoples and northern communities. It takes a proactive approach to park use that involves communities and provides local business opportunities and benefits while building local capacity. Success is ultimately measured in terms of benefit to the Government of Canada, Aboriginal peoples and communities, and other partners. Such iconic experiences will be offered by Parks Canada or private operators, often as packaged tours, and will combine incredible scenery, once-in-a- lifetime adventure and unforgettable cultural connections.
In the case of Qausuittuq, the IIBA provided for a payment of $3 million as a one-time grant to Inuit for an economic opportunities fund to enable local Inuit entrepreneurs to develop and promote a variety of services for park visitors, such as those related to heritage tourism.
In conclusion, Qausuittuq national park will offer an experience like no other in a place like no other. When visitors have come and gone, they will remain connected to our northern lands and our northern peoples in a way that they had never dreamed of before.
Mr. Hébert-Daly: Once again, thank you for the honour of presenting, this time with regard to creating a new national park in Nunavut.
CPAWS is also very supportive of the speedy passage of Bill C-72. I understand senators may feel a little pressure to adopt many bills all at once, but I want to say how grateful I am that we are moving forward with this bill despite a tight timeline. Conservation actually moves very slowly in Canada, but once we've all agreed to something, it's nice to see the closing process move as quickly as it has moved.
As with Bill C-61, Qausuittuq national park has been discussed over many years. It has been the product of much discussion and negotiation. It's a strong conservation outcome that will add another 11,000 square kilometres to our protected areas, another important step towards Canada's international commitment of protecting at least 17 per cent of Canada's land by 2020.
The Qikiqtani Inuit Association, QIA, worked collaboratively and effectively with Parks Canada to create a park that they will manage in a cooperative way. I would like to offer my congratulations to both for the incredible effort that went into this magnificent park.
The cultural values for the Inuit and the biological values for conservation are intimately woven in this remarkable park. The Peary caribou have been an emotional and cultural connection for this community. The habitat of the Peary caribou, the beautiful vistas and the economic opportunities for this remote community of Resolute are all sufficient reason to proceed without haste with this bill.
The land to the east of the park has been identified for protection under a draft Nunavut land-use plan. While CPAWS has strong chapters in the other two territories, we do not have a local chapter in Nunavut. Our involvement in this initiative has been in supporting the vision of the QIA and engaging the public in this evocative and iconic part of Canada. It contributes to CPAWS' overall vision of protecting at least half of Canada's land and water.
Despite the fact that its name means "place where the sun doesn't rise'' and since today is one of the longest days of the year, I consider the fact that the sun is actually shining on this park today. Your support for a new national park on northern Bathurst Island will bring a bright new day for conservation in Canada. I would urge you to proceed expeditiously in the adoption of Bill C-72.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will not go to questions.
Senator Patterson: I'm delighted with the endorsement from CPAWS today. It should encourage us that there are no issues with this bill.
Mr. Latourelle, parks in Nunavut are unique in Canada because of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. As you pointed out in your remarks, Inuit will have unrestricted access to lands, waters and marine areas for the purposes of harvesting within the park, but that's not an unqualified right. For the record, I would like you to explain that harvesting will be monitored and regulated, as I understand it, by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
We have a concern in the Baffin region right now about the health of the caribou population. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is taking strong measures to deal with that. I'd just like you to confirm for those who might be concerned that although there's access to the park for the purpose of harvesting, it will also be monitored with the conservation principle as a guiding value. Could you confirm that?
Mr. Latourelle: Yes, you are correct, senator. I would add that the cooperative management board, which includes representatives of the Inuit and Government of Canada, is another opportunity to discuss conservation opportunities and channels. But in terms of the right to hunt, fish and gather, it's unfettered, subject to conservation objectives. We operate within the land claim agreement.
Senator Patterson: Peary caribou are different from the barren-ground caribou. They're a unique species. Could you let us know how the health of that population of caribou is doing?
Mr. McNamee: Senator, regrettably I don't have complete up-to-date information, but they are still listed as a species at risk. However, when we started this proposal back in the mid-1990s, the numbers were fairly low. We had a unique opportunity to bring some elders from Resolute along with the negotiating team to see the park area a couple of years ago, and it was reported that they saw up to several hundred caribou. I was told that this actually brought tears to the eyes of the elders because they hadn't seen numbers like that for some time.
As you know, the conditions are quite harsh, and so it varies from winter to winter. I don't have the most up-to-date information, but they are still listed as at risk.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: The North and Nunavut have a lot of lakes, but why this one, in particular?
Mr. Latourelle: Canada is a national leader when it comes to national park planning. We have a system of 39 natural regions. Taking into account vegetation, wildlife and geology, we divided Canada into 39 natural regions. And within each region, we try to choose the area that best represents the region. It was that scientific approach that we used in selecting this specific area.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Those are all the questions we have for this bill.
We will now deal with Bill C-64, An Act to amend the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. The short title is "Georges Bank Protection Act.
With us today we have, from Natural Resources Canada, Terence Hubbard, Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch, Energy Sector; Samantha Maislin Dickson, General Counsel; and Samuel Millar, Senior Director, Frontier Lands Management Division, Energy Sector. We also have staying with us, from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Mr. Eric Hébert-Daly.
Gentlemen, the floor yours. I'm not sure who is speaking first, but you can start any time you want. Once the presentations are done, we'll go to questions.
Terence Hubbard, Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch, Energy Sector, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you, chair. It's a pleasure to be here this afternoon to discuss Bill C-64, the Georges Bank protection act. The legislation advances a commitment made in Economic Action Plan 2015 to work with the Province of Nova Scotia to advance legislative changes to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. That would continue the prohibition on oil and gas activities in the ecologically sensitive area of Georges Bank.
We have prepared a short presentation that has been circulated to members in advance. If it's okay with members and the chair, I would propose to spend a few minutes walking through that presentation before answering questions.
The Chair: Please do.
Mr. Hubbard: I'll turn it over to my colleague, Sam Millar.
Samuel Millar, Senior Director, Frontier Lands Management Division, Energy Sector, Natural Resources Canada: Thanks, Terry, and thank you, chair. I'm just going to go straight to slide 2 because Terry has covered some of the important background in terms of the bill itself.
Georges Bank is a productive fishery ecosystem that lies both in Canadian and U.S. waters. It is about 40,000 square kilometres overall, 7,000 of which are in Canadian waters.
Those 4,000 square kilometres of Georges Bank are within what we call the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore area. The area has been under moratorium for offshore petroleum activities, either a statutory-based moratorium or a policy- based moratorium, since 1988. That current policy moratorium, which is a joint moratorium with the Province of Nova Scotia, expires on December 31 of this year, 2015. Like Terry was saying, one of the key commitments of the budget of this year was to re-establish a statutory moratorium in the area.
[Translation]
Looking at slide 3, we can see that the bill amends the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to re-establish a statutory moratorium on all petroleum activity in Georges Bank. It also establishes a mechanism to renew the moratorium for additional periods of no more than 10 years each, through joint ministerial written notice published in the Canada Gazette.
The moratorium will be extended for an additional period of up to 10 years only after the government conducts a review of the environmental and socio-economic impacts of oil and gas activities in the sensitive region.
On slide 4, we can see that the legislative amendments were developed at the request of key stakeholders, including fishers' associations, environmental NGOs and First Nations. As a co-manager, the Government of Nova Scotia requested joint federal-provincial action and will introduce mirror legislation once the federal legislation receives Royal Assent. The bill shows that the federal government and its provincial partners can jointly manage offshore petroleum activities in Atlantic Canada with success. Thank you.
[English]
I've gone quickly through the presentation, and it would be our pleasure to respond to questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Hébert-Daly, do you have some remarks?
Mr. Hébert-Daly: Certainly. CPAWS' Nova Scotia chapter and the Ecology Action Centre in Nova Scotia have been following the bill very carefully and are very supportive of it.
I would add that of course in the long term CPAWS would love to see this area in a more permanent state of protection, but certainly on an interim basis we strongly support the movement of a moratorium in this area and the continued moratorium until 2022.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll go to questions.
[Translation]
Senator Massicotte: Once again, thank you all for joining us today. We are talking about territory that belongs to Canada, but I'm curious about something. Georges Bank extends into the U.S. What happens with that part? Do we look after our portion only, while the U.S. looks after theirs?
Mr. Millar: The bill would establish a moratorium solely in Canadian territory. In terms of the Americans' policy, in the past, they have also established moratoriums for periods of time. I believe the U.S. introduced a moratorium that began in 1984 and ended in 2012 or thereabouts. Since then, the U.S. hasn't had any requests for proposals in those areas, and so they don't have any exploration or production permits. All activity has essentially ceased.
Senator Massicotte: The Americans had a moratorium that expired in 2012. And there is currently nothing to suggest that they will re-establish one. Is that correct?
Mr. Millar: Yes.
Senator Massicotte: I'm surprised that the Canada-Nova Scotia Accord Act had to be amended in order to extend the moratorium. The agreement didn't include a provision or mechanism that would allow the government to extend the moratorium?
Mr. Millar: Yes, it did have such a provision, and it was used to establish the second moratorium period, which also expired in 2012, in Canada. The current act doesn't allow for any further extension of the moratorium, hence why the government introduced this legislation. It wanted the authority to extend the moratorium again, even after 2022.
Senator Massicotte: My next question may sound a bit weird. My understanding is that the moratorium ran out three years ago and that the bill requires urgent consideration so it can be passed before the end of the session. But why did it take three years to get to this point? Why is it so urgent that we pass the bill today?
Mr. Millar: In 2010, both governments jointly announced a policy-based moratorium. We are convinced that this moratorium will lead to a moratorium on all activity. No activity took place up until 2012. During that time, we did more research, consulting with stakeholders and talking to our partner, the Government of Nova Scotia. At the end of the day, both governments decided that it was clearly worthwhile to re-establish the moratorium on a statutory basis.
[English]
Senator Day: I think part of my question was just answered. Ms. Dickson will understand this with her legal background; we're feeling a bit rushed here. We're being asked to look at three bills in one afternoon. That's not to say that the policy to create these economic zones and this particular legislation is something that we shouldn't encourage, but we have to make sure that we don't create any unintended consequences by moving so quickly.
My first question is why are you asking us to move so quickly? How long has this legislation been sitting around waiting to be presented?
Mr. Millar: The government announced its intention on April 21 to re-establish the moratorium, and we've moved quickly since that time to introduce the legislation. Obviously there was a period of consultation with our joint management partner, the Government of Nova Scotia, leading up to the announcement.
The bill itself is quite simple. It's a page and a half, not a long bill. It seeks to re-establish the moratorium that is currently in the bill but for reasons related to the drafting in 1988 can no longer be used. In a sense, you could view this bill as a bit of clean-up.
I turn to my colleague from the Department of Justice to confirm that, but I hope that sheds some light on your question.
Senator Day: It does, but prompts another question.
You talk in your presentation of both statutory- and policy-based moratoria. Is that the plural of moratorium?
Mr. Millar: Moratoria, yes.
Senator Day: You talk about both. This is the policy side that you're making statutory now. So it will all be statutory. All the moratoria throughout this agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia in terms of economic development have some area reserved now, and there will be a moratorium in the Georges Bank area to allow for fishing to take place there as opposed to looking for oil and gas.
Mr. Millar: Right. Just to clarify, the moratorium we're talking about today is a moratorium on oil and gas activities exclusively. It doesn't touch other kinds of marine activities that might take place.
Maybe I can clarify the history on the moratorium.
Senator Day: The policy versus statutory.
Mr. Millar: In 1988, when the accord act was introduced and came into force, that was the initial moment of a statutory moratorium created under the federal accord act, and the province had its mirror accord act which also established a moratorium.
In 2000, that's when the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia jointly extended that statutory moratorium, and did so until 2012. They used the accord act, the federal statute, to do that.
In 2012 the moratorium expired. As I've mentioned, there's no provision in the act at present to extend it further beyond 2012. It was a one-time extension. In 2010 the two governments jointly announced a policy moratorium, which is set to expire at the end of this calendar year.
Senator Day: Were the policy and the statutory related to a moratorium on the whole area?
Mr. Millar: On the whole area, and they covered the same activities.
Senator Day: So now we're making it statutory with this legislation.
Mr. Millar: Right.
Senator Day: As a final point, the fact that it's only a page and a half or two pages long doesn't give us a lot of comfort. A lot of things can happen in a page and a half or two pages. We've seen that in the past.
Thank you.
The Chair: That is the end of the questions I have for this particular bill.
Senator Day, in my experience in government, which has been fairly lengthy, the public has never told me that we're moving fast. This is maybe an opportunity for you, when people say government moves too slowly, to refer to these three bills where we have agreement to move them through relatively quickly for the benefit of everyone. It's good news in one way. As Mr. Hébert-Daly talked about, it's something that the public wants done in an "expeditious fashion,'' to use your words, sir.
Senator Day: If I may comment, I think what we're doing is excellent. We're doing our due diligence here in the Senate on these three bills as opposed to what we have seen happen in the House of Commons, where they were all deemed. Thank you very much for being here and spending the time to explain what is intended in this legislation.
The Chair: We'll go now to clause-by-clause consideration. If the witnesses want to stay and listen, they're quite welcome.
Before we start, are there any questions around the table? If not, I believe we can proceed.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: If you are fine with it, I'll bunch the clauses.
Shall clauses 2 to 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Senator Day: Without amendment.
The Chair: Without amendment.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I wasn't going to say "without amendment'' because there is no amendment.
Is it agreed by the committee to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-72, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report the bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-64, An Act to amend the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 2 to 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report the bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That's it.
(The committee adjourned.)