Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and pleasure that I rise in the House today to give my first speech in the Chamber.
By way of my opening remarks, I thank the voters of Nanaimo—Cowichan for allowing me the privilege to serve as their member of Parliament. It is an honour for me to be able to represent the views of my constituents in Parliament, and I will do so to the very best of my ability.
In debating Bill C-6, which is before the House today, I feel it is necessary to discuss the background of the legislation. In this regard, Bill C-6, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Management Act, is the reincarnation of Bill C-80 which was tabled in the last parliament.
As with Bill C-80, the bill provides for the establishment of management boards to co-ordinate environmental assessment as well as land and water regulations in the Mackenzie Valley of the Northwest Territories. In this respect it fulfils the requirements under a land claims agreement reached in the 34th Parliament calling for such co-ordination.
Bill C-6 requires that 50% of the new board members be nominated by first nations, with the other 50% by the governments of the Northwest Territories and Canada. The intent is to give aboriginal people and other northerners a stronger role in resource management decisions. This is a very commendable goal.
As a Reformer I have no problem with giving our aboriginal peoples more control over their destinies. When we in Reform talk about equality for our aboriginal peoples, it is to put them on the same footing with their fellow Canadians.
I must say, however, that in this regard I do get rather tired of pious criticism of Reform Party policy on aboriginal affairs. It comes mostly from a Liberal government which in the main has not put its money where its mouth is.
For many years now a number of us in this party have taken a grassroots interest in our native peoples. From a personal perspective it has been an experience that I have shared with my wife over the past 18 years. During this time, and even now, we have cared as foster parents for many aboriginal children with medical problems. Three of our eight children are aboriginal. We love them as much as we do our first family of birth children.
What really gets me is that we have had to care for these little ones as a direct result of the Liberal and Conservative mismanagement of a system which has effectively abused our native population for decades.
I remind members of the House that when they start to attack Reform Party policy in this area they ought to be prepared to walk in my shoes and in the shoes of others who have actively helped and supported our native peoples.
When I criticize the bill before us, when I indicate that I will not vote for it in its present form, when I state that changes must be made, when I do all this, it is not because Reform is insensitive to the needs of aboriginal people as my Liberal friends believe. To do so would be insulting.
I urge hon. members across the way not to attack my position because they somehow construe it to be anti-native. It is not that at all. It is because the bill is flawed.
Aside from aboriginal concerns, the issue we are addressing also seems to be one of environmental and economic concern. The media communications office of the minister of aboriginal affairs seems to want this to be the focus when it claims that industry will benefit from improved efficiency and cost effectiveness of a regime which purports to build a single environmental impact assessment process and to streamline the process of obtaining water licences and land use permits.
Reform recognizes the validity of the goals in the legislation, in particular the need to resolve commitments made by Canada under land claims agreements. In this regard agreements on land, water management and protection of the environment in the Mackenzie Valley are issues of importance to residents of the region and Canadians in general.
Reform's objections to Bill C-6 centre on the creation of yet another level of bureaucracy and the resulting duplication of services. In addition there are specific industry concerns which need to be addressed, as the Northwest Chamber of Mines notes, “before the confusion, delays and cost of this new system grind mineral exploration to a painful halt”.
The chamber of mines points to the recent decision by Inco to defer development at Voisey's Bay because of the onerous and poorly defined regulatory demands, and this in a system that is ostensibly far better defined and more unified than that which is being proposed for the Mackenzie Valley.
Reform is further opposed to Bill C-6 as it erodes the standards of resource management regulation for the perception of stronger northern influence. But it does so at a price. The new system would repeat the difficulties present within the existing system and would compound them with additional burdens.
Let me illustrate. First, it will create yet another layer of interjurisdictional confusion. Second, there will be even less clarity in the rules and standards. Third, all this will result in an inevitable increase in the costs of compliance.
The Northwest Territory Chamber of Mines speaks for business and individuals active in the area. It outlined its concerns following an information session held by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development officials in Yellowknife on September 25, 1997.
The chamber stressed a number of points. There would be new obstacles for resource development including the potential for interference with staking of mineral claims, the change in the role of leases and land use permits, new powers to boards to suspend permits and leases, poorly defined terms for new rights to compensation, and a confused enforcement policy.
They also felt the lack of clarity would instigate litigation. In this regard attendees at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development information session in September raised many questions and far too many were answered with uncertainty.
Far too often they were given the worrying response that such matters would have to be settled in court. If legal recourse is now recognized as the only way to settle matters the chamber says regularly arise in the north, surely this is the time to amend the legislation before it ever gets that far.
Critics also point to the vulnerability to deliberate, delaying tactics inherent in the legislation. There is the fear that deficiencies in the act will encourage parties to use delay as a tactic to impede environmental review. It is believed that this would be done in order to rest concessions that are largely unrelated to the protection of the environment or to the specifics of the proposal.
While Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development officials dismiss this concern as improbable, the chamber pointed to the region's recent experience with federal environmental reviews. It referred to them as growing pains encountered in Nunavut and to current difficulties in Fort Providence as evidence. On these matters the chamber said:
It is our extensive experience with operating in this region that leads us to put such a high priority on clarity, fairness and consistency in the rules and their application.
The Northwest Territory Chamber of Mines also had reservations about public representation on public boards. In this respect it feels there is also a lack of clarity in the process for selecting members to serve on various panels and boards.
Bill C-6 introduces three new board levels, but it does not spell out what criteria will be used in determining who is a proper representative of the public interest. A process that is not open and clear can surely lead to a perception of mistrust and bias.
Some conclusions reached in regard to Bill C-80 will ostensibly apply to Bill C-6 as well. In particular, conversations with other industry representatives consulted by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during the development of Bill C-80 confirmed their belief that a single review process which avoids duplication of time and effort is the single most important issue. The bill does not address this concern.
In addition, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have not made comment since the fall of 1996. At that time they too stressed the need for an agreement with the goal of efficiency.
In view of all of this, amendments at committee stage may well save the day for the bill.
The chamber of mines represents about 600 companies and individuals currently engaged in mineral exploration, mine development and mine operation in the Northwest Territories. The chamber of mines has called for substantial amendments in two areas which we in the Reform Party can support.
First, the lack of clarity in the law and in the rules is likely to produce very uneven regulations. It will do so across the region from one applicant to the next, resulting in a highly litigious process.
Second, the new system is seriously under-resourced, especially in its technical capacity. This will likely prove to be a disadvantage in dealing with the large workload created by transitional arrangements. It will also affect changes to leasing.
In conclusion, unless there are changes which address the shortcomings of this legislation, I serve notice of my intent now to vote against this bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to do the same. As I said earlier, voting against this bill does not somehow mean you are insensitive to the needs of aboriginal people. It does however mean that you recognize that the bill is flawed and that there are changes which are necessary.
