Bill C-2 (Historical)

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act

An Act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon

Canada Pension Plan

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill C-3, having been a member of the finance committee when the former Bill C-2 established the CPP Investment Board. Having spoken on it, I feel I have a little bit of background knowledge on it.

I was astounded today to hear some of the commentary by some of the members. There was one speaker, I believe from the NDP, who suggested that when the GIS increased, the CPP would automatically decrease. That is absolutely incorrect. Canada pension plan benefits are determined independently, they are not subject to an income test or a means test. Canadians get reports periodically on their prospective pension benefits so that they know exactly what they have to work with in terms of their overall retirement planning.

Bill C-3 would provide another step toward the fuller implementation of the creation of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board which was set up under former Bill C-2 to bring the Canada pension plan into the next phase to take into account the fact that we have an aging society. That is what it comes down to.

Let me comment briefly on the investment board. I then want to get back to the Canada pension plan because it is important that we reassure Canadians exactly what the Canada pension plan system is and how it works for them.

The board established in 1998 and it is an independent arm's-length board from government. It has a mandate to invest only in the interest of plan members. It has full authority to develop and implement investment policies and has a process for choosing its own board of directors.

It now has a track record with regard to the moneys that have been transferred to it for its investment and indeed on a calendar year basis, the Canada pension plan's last reported annual return was 6.2% which outperformed many other large public sector pension plans. Canadians should understand that the board has a good track record. I wish to note some comparatives. People might be familiar with the Caisse de dépôt which over the same period had a return on its investment of negative 5%. It lost 5%. The Ontario teachers pension plan lost 2.3%. In terms of the performance measures, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has been doing a good job on behalf of Canadians through the management of Canadian funds.

There was a question raised by some members about a number of issues such as, why we do not invest in certain types of investments rather than others, for instance, why do we not have an ethical filter, or a health filter? For example, let us not invest in tobacco companies because tobacco is bad. There were a number of principles involved in establishing the investment board and one of those was that it was not going to be manipulated and used as an instrument of policy. It was not going to be used to direct how we were going to influence certain activities either in the marketplace or in terms of social policy.

Therefore, the thinking at the time was that given the size of the fund the investment board was going to manage the fund on behalf of Canadians. It was important that this large investment body, with this large pool of funds, was not going to be used in a way which would bring disruption to the marketplace. It meant that it was going to invest in a balanced way right across the spectrum and basically emulate the investment patterns of all other investors in the Canadian marketplace as well as foreign investment content.

The House has dealt many times with foreign content in registered retirement savings plans, et cetera. Certainly it continues to be a matter which the finance committee has looked at.

It is another element of a good investment strategy to ensure that there is an opportunity to have a balance in a portfolio and that Canadians can earn a fair and equitable return relative to other investment opportunities. However with a restriction on foreign investments, it could be argued that those who have a different investment strategy and utilize investment funds outside of their RRSPs have no limitations on how much they can invest abroad.

They do have options if in fact the returns were that much greater, but in this volatile marketplace the CPP Investment Board is not meant to be an instrument of high risk or volatility. It has to support the marketplace to the extent necessary not to impair the availability of capital for Canadian capital markets. At the same time it should be supportive of Canadian businesses through equity investments that reflect the broad base of listed equity investments as well as debt instruments that are available to all investors.

The issue regarding foreign investment is always under discussion and it is useful to have. I know that the CPP Investment Board is made up of some of the best experts in the industry and those kinds of questions come up. As members will know, the Canada Pension Plan system is a collaboration of federal and provincial governments and there is a tri-annual review, I believe there is a review this fall, at which time the provinces and the federal government get together to look at some of the matters which have come to their attention, and where they may want to review policy positions.

I would encourage all members who are interested in the process to make suggestions to the Government of Canada, to the Minister of Finance, maybe through the parliamentary secretary, about items they would like to see discussed with regard to the future of the Canada pension plan and how it operates. It is constructive to get those items on the agenda so that when the provinces and the federal government get together and sit down and talk about the CPP, they have the benefit of the ideas we have from Canadians and from our own work, whether it be through the finance committee or otherwise. Their deliberations will determine how the Canada pension plan can better serve Canadians over the longer term.

I was a concerned about one speaker from the Canadian Alliance, the member for Peace River. It reminded me of the discussions that were taking place in the House about the future viability of the Canada pension plan system. The then Reform Party, now the Canadian Alliance, came up with a view that the Canada pension plan system should be replaced by another system which was described as a mandatory pension contribution by Canadians. It is almost a mandatory retirement plan.

This was the solution to the problems of the Canada pension plan system because it has higher premiums than it used to, and it has an unfunded liability. According to the Canadian Alliance we should take that system, put it over here, and the best thing we can do for Canadians is have a mandatory contributory plan to pensions.

I have never, ever thought that this idea was well thought out. I was concerned that someone actually would suggest that somehow retirement contributions would be mandated, knowing that in a volatile world, more often than not people are not only living from paycheque to paycheque, they are actually borrowing to live. How does a Canadian make a mandatory contribution to a pension plan, to a pension program, when cash flow is not available? How does he or she provide for those pension benefits? It makes no sense. I have not heard the explanation and I hope that the members who are suggesting that would explain that point.

There is another aspect. Let us look at the Canada pension plan system and what it does today. It provides pension benefits to Canadians when they reach retirement age. Canadians have the opportunity to retire early, up to age 60 instead of 65, by taking a slightly reduced pension. They also have the opportunity to extend or defer the collection of Canada pension plan benefits and earn even a greater benefit. So there is a little bit of latitude here, depending on personal circumstances. Canadians have this opportunity either to take pension benefits early or to defer them.

The Canada pension plan also provides survivor benefits to the spouse of a pensioner who passes away. It is very important that there be this continuity of the benefits for a family or a part thereof because they have responsibilities.

There are also death benefits. I am not sure if Canadians are aware but under the Canada pension plan system a person does have a death benefit. Should a pensioner die, a death benefit is there for the surviving spouse and for any surviving children. I think the amount was $2,000 but I believe it is now just $1,000. It went down but the benefit is there.

Then there is the disability benefit, which most Canadians probably have not figured out why it is in the Canada pension plan system. Under the Canada pension plan system Canadians who become disabled and are contributors to the Canada pension plan system qualify for disability benefits.

We have talked quite a bit in recent days about the importance of disability benefits and to make sure that people who are entitled to those disability benefits get them. There is some controversy now about whether the rules have been changed and maybe some people who should get disability benefits are not getting benefits. I think members know, through our work in our constituency offices, that there are venues and that every case can be dealt with on a case by case basis to justify a disability benefit.

That is an expensive proposition. Members can imagine how when we build up pension benefits, survivor benefits, death benefits and disability benefits, the CPP is a very important program for Canadians. For the life of me I do not understand how a mandatory retirement plan replacing CPP would address all those other benefits. What would happen to the survivor benefits? What would happen to the death benefits? What would happen to the disability benefits?

I asked the member for Peace River what would happen to the disability benefits. He said that was a very good question and that he would have to think about it.

Those things are not thought about after one says “here is our solution to the problem”. Those things have to be thought out in advance. I must say that it is disconcerting to me to think that when suggestions like that come out they could actually become part of a policy or a platform item of a party to suggest that by a stroke of the pen we could get rid of the CPP and do something else, which I am not sure Canadians could manage, particularly in those early years.

We made a number of changes in the plan over the years. They were important changes to respond to the needs of Canadians.

The Canada pension plan system has an unfunded liability and members know that. It has become a source of criticism by the members of the government and of the Canada pension plan system itself. However members must understand from where we came.

The Canada pension plan system started in 1966. When it was first started the initial premiums I believe were about $35 a year. It was very nominal. At that time there were at least five working persons in Canada contributing premiums for every one pensioner.

Why was the Canada pension plan system set up? If we look back and we figure out who these people are who receive pensions, they are the people who came through the depression years. These are the people who in the most important part of their earning life went through a depression and had no opportunity to provide for retirement. It was devastating for families. They could hardly feed themselves. It was a period of time before I was born, but we educate ourselves and we have to understand where Canadians came from. So that was a big part of why the CPP was set up.

Canadians had nothing for themselves in retirement. We had to take care of them somehow so we established the Canada pension plan system in 1966 to provide some measure of retirement dignity for those who had built this country. What more noble cause could there be?

The people who started collecting pension benefits back in 1966 made no contributions to the pension plan. They just started collecting benefits because they had nothing. So all of a sudden this principle that we are always in arrears, today's workers are paying for today's pensioners.

When there are over five workers for every one retiree there can be low premiums. What has happened as we have moved through the decades? Our society started to age. In the next 10 or 15 years instead of having five workers for every pensioner there will only be three. It is clear that something has to change.

Pensioners collecting CPP who had worked some 40 years and made regular contributions to the CPP from 1966 to 2001, their accumulative premium contributions were less than $16,000. I will put that in perspective.

Today's pensioners paid in about $16,000 if they had worked from 1966 to 2001. What can we get for $16,000 even if we assume that it was invested and received a fair and reasonable return over all the years of contributions? We would not have received much, and yet our Canada pension plan system paid out pension benefits, death benefits and later disability benefits, the child benefit and survivor benefits.

Things changed to the point where premiums had to increase. Today's pensioners receive about $8 for every $1 they put in. The opposition is suggesting that it is a travesty that tomorrow's pensioners will not get the same $8 for every $1. I do not know where anyone can make investments like that anymore. We did it at the time because it raised the quality of life of yesterday's pensioners up to a reasonable standard so they could live in the dignity to which they were entitled. It was not equitable but it was the right thing to do.

Now we have to look at the reality of an increasing retirement population. We have to look at the fact that all of a sudden it is expensive to continue to provide retirees with those ongoing benefits and still maintain some stability in that. It costs money and there were increases.

Members continue to say that this was a tax grab, the biggest tax bite ever, and all the hyperbole one can think of. All of the funds in the Canada pension plan are separate and apart from the government's revenue. They are not included in the determination of a surplus or deficit for the year. It is a separate fund. All CPP premium contributions go to the plan and all benefits are paid out of that plan.

When the actuaries did their numbers they told us what we had to do to ensure the long term sustainability of the Canada pension plan system. There were substantial increases. It was important for Canadians to continue to support pension benefits, survivor benefits, death benefits and disability benefits up to a level so that our retirees could live in dignity in their retirement years. To suggest that we are somehow going to take this away and force Canadians to fend for themselves is not only wrong, it is irresponsible.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-2.

Canada Pension Plan

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan Act that has been brought back in this Parliament after Parliament prorogued last spring.

The main thrust of Bill C-3 is to propose a transfer of all amounts held in the Department of Finance within the Canada pension plan account, including the bond portfolio which is worth about $40 billion. It is the transfer to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. This transfer would take place over a three year period.

Bill C-3 would establish a means for the transfer of assets between the Department of Finance and the CPP Investment Board so that immediate payout obligations of the plan can be met. The legislation also spells out how the provincial securities currently held in the account may be redeemed or replaced. Lastly, the bill would apply to the Canadian pension plan fund the 30% foreign content limit that applies to registered retirement savings plans and employer and union sponsored pension plans in Canada.

While Bill C-3 is a step in the government's planned development of the public pension plan, managed at arm's length by a crown corporation, the bill is more than a housekeeping bill. The Canadian Alliance is opposed to the Liberal solution of bilking Canadian workers and employers out of billions of dollars to pay for a plan that is unquestionably unfair to younger generations in our society.

The Canada pension plan was devised over 36 years ago by a Liberal government with a noble objective, one which I believe all members then and now can agree on, to provide retirement security to all Canadians and to reduce poverty among seniors. A mandatory pension plan was devised and paid for through equal payroll contributions and deductions from workers and employers.

Back in 1966 Canadians were told that their payroll deductions required to fund the Canada pension plan would never go above 5.5%. However, how times change. When the plan was designed it was assumed that there would be six taxpaying workers for every dependent retiree. Of course, we know that has changed significantly. The member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley just talked about the changing demographics in our society. Anybody who does not have a plan to deal with that is in for some nasty surprises.

We know that the birth rate in Canada for every two people is 1.2, not even a replacement factor for those people. It will certainly have a major impact on how governments operate and how we will continue to fund retirement savings with a bigger percentage of our society being in the older category and less people in the younger group paying the bills.

From 1966 to 1982, annual Canada pension plan contributions exceeded the plan's annual benefit payouts. The funds were invested in provincial bonds and the plan's assets accumulated to almost $24 billion. Beginning in 1983, however, contributions fell short of benefits. Nevertheless, the interest on the $24 billion was sufficient to keep the overall CPP in surplus for another 10 years. By 1992, the pool of assets had grown to $42 billion.

However, in 1993, the year this current Liberal government took office, was the year that the culmination of contributions and interest could not produce the revenue required to cover the stream of benefits. That was a major turning point. The Canadian pension plan's chief actuary warned that without changes the plan would be in very deep trouble, especially when the baby boomer generation began to reach 65 in about the year 2012.

By 1997 Canada pension plan's assets had fallen to $35.5 billion. During the fall of that year the Liberal government introduced Bill C-2 which was designed to save the Canada pension plan by the only way it knows how to govern: take more money from Canadian taxpayers. We see it over and over again and again this year in the Speech from the Throne.

The Liberal government showed its contempt for Canadian taxpayers and Parliament all at the same time by invoking closure after a mere eight hours of debate on a huge issue that Canadians needed to be concerned about.

Starting in 1998, Canadians saw their take home pay shrink as contribution rates for both employees and employers were jacked up in a series of increases to the Canada pension plan.

Canada pension plan premiums went from 5.5% on the average industrial wage income to 9.4% where it is currently. By 2003 it will be up to 9.9%. That is a staggering 73% increase and the biggest tax grab in Canadian history. What is really scary is that the former chief actuary of the Canada pension plan had suggested during that time that a rate higher than 9.9% was necessary to save the pension plan. However that did not suit the former finance minister's plans for his political career and instead of listening to the chief actuary he had him fired. That solved a lot. I guess what goes around comes around. Eventually the former finance minister met the same fate himself and he was fired.

With more money flowing into the Canada pension plan as a result of these jacked up rates, the plan's total revenue exceeded benefits slightly in 1998 and by 2000 contributions alone were high enough to cover all the benefits. By the end of 2001 Canada pension plan assets were approaching $48 billion. Yet despite extracting all that money from Canadian taxpayers, the Canada pension plan's unfunded liability is estimated to be a whopping $430 billion. Just in case people cannot relate that to what is currently in the plan, the current plan's assets are approaching $48 billion but the liability is $430 billion. It has almost 10 times as much in liability as we have funds to cover it.

The current chief actuary of the Canada pension plan, the one who replaced the one fired by the finance minister, admits that the contributions will once again fall short of benefit payouts but the government is betting on the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to beat that system. We heard from the member for Burnaby--Douglas that he was concerned about that because the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board had losses when the market went down.

The member for Lanark—Carleton, who spoke before me, also has a big concern with this. Our concern is not so much that there is a Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, it is that government tends to use these boards for political expediency and political operatives. Pressure can be put on these boards to invest in favoured companies that happen to give a lot of money to the governing party of the day, and which maybe the Liberals favour. We know the Quebec pension plan has had difficulty managing its money wisely and it tends to be politically motivated.

The other problem is that in a small market like Canada the huge amount of money has a disproportionate effect on our markets. What does it invest in? At one time Nortel made up 30% of the Toronto Stock Exchange. We know where it is at today and I think the Canada pension plan also knows where it is at because that was one of its major investments at the time, but what else do we invest in if we have to invest in Canada? Even more so, the legislation would restrict the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to invest 70% of all that it has in Canada. There is a 30% foreign investment rule restriction that ties the hands of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

Employers and the self-employed are feeling the brunt of the Liberal CPP tax grab. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is currently conducting a letter writing campaign on the subject of the government's job killing payroll taxes. It notes that while employers received a 7¢ reduction in their employment insurance premiums, Canada pension plan premiums went up by 40¢ and they are set to increase another 25¢ in 2003. Everything the employers gained back in the employment insurance premium reductions has been eaten up by Canada pension plan increases.

If the government plans to see the CPP hike through, I would hope that at least it would look at the mangled EI program where revenues far outstrip EI costs and disappear into general revenue.

The worst injustice by the Liberal government and its CPP hike is the intergenerational unfairness. Mr. Ménard admits that every Canadian worker born after 1980 will see their Canada pension plan investment will offer them a 2% return on investment for their retirement. However those who retired in 1995, a different generation, will receive a 9% return on their investment.

What does that say to our young people who are expected to pay the bills? They are expected to pay the bills for our generation's retirement and they will not even have enough for their own as a result of this mismanaged plan. That is totally unfair and it simply will not work. As these young people get into positions of power in government and other places in society they will not accept this. They will throw it off. It seems to me that it would be better to change our plans now than to have a mangled system thrown out down the road in 10 years by the generation that sees this as being totally unfair.

The fact is that the Canada pension plan will take in just under 10% of income to receive 25% after age 65. The average annual payout is $5,500 a year. The best one can hope to receive from CPP is under $9,000 a year.

We talked about how things have changed and are changing in terms of demographics. The number of seniors in Canada will double to 22% of the population by the year 2031. This will place a heavy burden on workers who support pension and health programs.

I am sure that hon. members know if they examine their hearts on this issue that when the young people of today form the majority in this country they will be sorely tempted to change the plan to ensure that they will get some of the benefits that will now only go to the people who are currently in the plan.

The Canadian Alliance does not believe that our future security lies in the wages of a shrinking workforce. Rather, it lies in the vast productivity and production capacity of the economy. We value retirement security as a vital element of independence. The Canadian Alliance policy platform states that we will honour obligations to retired Canadians and those close to retirement under the current state run programs. We will also maintain support for low income seniors. However, and this is a very important distinction, the Canadian Alliance believes that future retirees deserve a greater choice between a government managed pension plan and a mandatory personal plan.

With the objective of giving Canadians greater control of their own affairs and retirement plans, we will eliminate the foreign investment restriction for retirement investments and devise options to allow individuals greater opportunity to save for themselves as we see that the current system failed its original objective from 1966. Times have changed considerably in terms of demographics.

What we are interested in is fairness in the system and a system that will actually work for future generations. That is why we think the Canada pension plan in its current form is failing young Canadians who are coming up. We are concerned that when young Canadians discover this as they become adults and they come into positions of authority, that they will take matters into their own hands and make changes. Instead of waiting for that to happen, let us look forward a little, be proactive and try to devise a plan that works and will work for future Canadians and will respect the demographic change happening in Canada. As I said earlier, we have an aging population.

We hear a lot of chatter from the other side but the fact of the matter is that it is the Liberal government--

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill. I want to bring to the attention of the House a connection to this bill which deals with aboriginal people.

There is an absolute crisis taking place on the Pikangikum reserve north of Kenora, north of the minister's riding. This reserve has the highest suicide rate in the entire world. Alcohol and drug abuse are rampant. Organizations are dysfunctional. Ninety-five per cent of the homes do not have running water. There are no sewers; there are outhouses. The community is bereft of hope. I say that with a single purpose in mind.

To show how acute the crisis is among the Ojibway people, this year alone eight females, five of them just 13 years old, have killed themselves. The Pikangikum reserve, with roughly 2,000 people, has an eight year average of 213 suicides per 100,000 people, which is 36 times our national average. I raise this issue in connection with the bill to plead with the Minister of Indian Affairs to deal with the situation acutely, to implement some suicide prevention programs to help save the children in particular of the Pikangikum reserve north of Kenora.

Turning now to the bill, 32,000 people live in the Yukon, which has 4% of our land mass, of which 77% is wilderness. There are 61 mammal species and 278 bird species. There is an extraordinary array of environmental jewels and cultures that exist in the Yukon. The bill is certainly going in the right direction toward blending sustainable development with preserving that incredible gift we have as a country.

I would suggest to the hon. minister that it is possible to link sustainable development and environmental protection with the enhancement of the lives of the people there. I would suggest a model to the minister. Brazil and certain parts of southern Africa have linked them. They have basically said that wild spaces have to generate funds if they are going to survive. The funds generated are poured back into the wild spaces for their preservation. The opportunities are enormous.

What does the north in general have? There is the Alaska Highway pipeline for one and the Northwest Territories pipeline down to Alberta for gas. The north has diamonds, the new emerald find near the Finlayson Lake district, natural gas, iron ore, lead, zinc and copper. They will provide the basic fuel to generate long term sustainable employment in the Northwest Territories and an enrichment of the people's lives there.

That will only happen if some of those moneys are then poured back into environmental protection and environmental enhancement. If we manage to link up that development and also utilize those moneys not only for the welfare of the people but also pour some of it back into the environment, then the people of the Yukon and the people in the north in general will have sustainable development that is congruent with environmental protection.

Historically, they have done a very good job of preserving their environment by engaging in some innovative cleanups of toxic sites. Indeed, only the wood bison and the peregrine falcon are the two major mammal species that are in danger of extinction. That is not a bad track record. The peregrine falcon has dropped to a threatened species from one on the verge of extinction.

There are some significant challenges in the north. I hope the resources there can be used to drive some environmental protection issues, such as the issue of pollution.

In Siberia the Russians dumped a lot of nuclear materials right on the ground. Those radionuclides, those cancer causing, teratogenic, carcinogenic materials have gone into the food chain. If we look at aboriginal people and some of the large mammal species at the top of the food chain, we see extraordinarily high levels of the cancer causing and teratogenic materials within their body tissue. It is having a devastating effect, particularly on aboriginal communities in the north.

I encourage the government to work with other arctic nations to deal with this acute situation. If we do not deal with it now, those cancer-causing agents, those radioactive materials that are so prevalent in certain parts of the north, will continue to waft into our food chain with devastating effects on the people who live there.

The other issue we are dealing with is climate change. The natural resources of the north can be used to generate the resources needed to combat climate change. Is it Kyoto or bust? No, there is a third way.

Kyoto, as we know, is a shell game, moving emissions trading credits around the world. In fact our country will do absolutely nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That is the big flaw in Kyoto. How can we do that? One of the things people in the north and indeed all of us can do is use energy more responsibly, conserve energy better and use existing technologies to reduce our emissions quite significantly through cars, trucks and in heat loss through homes. The amount we conserve could go well beyond the 6% target we set for ourselves in Kyoto in relation to 1990 levels. Indeed, we could go beyond that, which would be useful for all of us.

This is important for the north because if we look at the last few years, in 1998 and 1999 Yukon had two of the four warmest temperatures ever recorded in history. The Beaufort Sea ice pack was 40% less than what has ever been seen. Is this proof of global warming? No, it is not. Is it an indication that there is a problem? Yes, it is, and if we want to use a precautionary principle, we must do whatever we can to use our energy resources more responsibly. In doing so we could go beyond the commitments we chose to make, without, incidentally, taking on the oil patch, reducing jobs or affecting our economy.

If we were to adopt the approach of using the technologies we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we could find an actual added benefit to our economy in terms of a net increase to the GDP.

I would ask the minister to please look at the experience in Europe where they are well ahead of the curve on this. If we do not adopt the approach of using existing technologies to reduce pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, two separate entities but connected by virtue of what produces them, we could be left behind the eight ball in terms of our own economic development. I would encourage the government to look at those issues.

My friend from Yukon brought to our attention a very interesting problem connected to this bill, the issue of medical manpower. Yukon has a problem with medical manpower, particularly the distribution in rural areas. We have had some very good discussions on this and there is a solution. What Yukon can do is connect with existing medical training facilities for doctors, nurses and technicians and have some of that training take place in Yukon. If it does that in conjunction with paying for a certain number of medical school nursing and technical-medical positions in return for an equal number of years of service in rural areas, Yukon will be able to get the medical manpower that it desperately needs. Indeed my friend from Yukon brought to our attention the terrible situation of a lot of people in Yukon being unable to get basic medical care as a result of this acute problem of a lack of manpower.

Bill C-2, through the generation of funds and sustainable development, could generate funds that would enable Yukon to pay for certain spots in medical training facilities and in return the quid pro quo would be that those individuals would have to spend an equal number of years in a rural setting under service settings such as Yukon. It does work. We need to catch people right out of school and get them into those rural centres where they can develop relationships and set down roots. There is a better chance of them staying in those rural areas than if we try to pick people out of urban settings after they have completed their training.

The next issue I would like to address is the issue of aboriginal communities. The question of how to engage aboriginal people in development was asked in Central America and Brazil.

It was found that if the aboriginal people were allowed to use some of the money from the natural resources, be it emeralds, diamonds or natural gas, and were able to pour it into primary health, education and skills training, they would be able to improve their health and welfare. This is very consistent with a document put out by a consortium of aboriginal groups. The document gave some very basic principles of what needed to be engaged in with the Yukon government if sustainable development were to work: the aboriginal peoples would be consulted; they would be participants in development and local governments would have municipal powers, which is what the Canadian Alliance has been fighting for and now the minister of aboriginal affairs has been communicating very well. If aboriginal people could have municipal powers, be engaged in the development process in a constructive way, be participants at the table and share in the resources in a meaningful way, then we would have sustainable development in the Yukon as well as improve the health and welfare of aboriginal communities in Yukon.

I hope the premier of Nunavut and his council will look at this as a model he could adopt for his communities in Nunavut. As members know, the rates of substance abuse, sexual abuse and suicide rates in Nunavut are off the wall. The feds are paying huge amounts of taxpayer money to sustain the situation in Nunavut right now. If Nunavut were to look at some of these models, which I hope will be applied in Yukon, then both Nunavut and Yukon would benefit.

Some people like to look at northern development in isolation but I would encourage them to look at northern development as part of Canadian development. If we were to track where the resources in the north were going, for example the pipelines, we would see that they do flow north to south. It behooves us as a country to have a greater north-south dialogue within our own country. I would suggest that has been lacking for a long time.

The engagement between the populated areas along our borders with the United States and the people in the north would go a long way to removing misconceptions and ensuring greater development and harmonization of economic and social activities between both the north and the south.

I want to emphasize again to the government that within the bill lies a great opportunity to engage in true sustainable economic development. However, in order to do that, the development of natural resources in the north, be it natural gas, diamonds, emeralds, tourism or hydro power, can and must be done in a way that ensures that the people of Yukon benefit economically from the development of those resources and that the development of those resources generates a pool of cash that can be used for environmental protection.

I think the public would be shocked to know about the absolute lack of resources that many of our conservation officers have. They struggle to find $100 to pay for a pair of binoculars when they are doing research in the field. With the lack of resources and the yeoman's job they perform, they deserve a medal. They are unable to do the job they are being asked to do which is to preserve and protect the environment in the north and protect the species that live there.

The bill is an interesting one and we look forward to it coming to committee. My party has put forth some constructive amendments. We certainly hope the government listens to them so that the bill will move forward in a constructive fashion that benefits all the people in Yukon and indeed Canada.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member for Davenport. I knew there was a standing order to that effect. We all listened with great interest to what he had to say.

There are some comments I want to make with respect to Bill C-2, the Yukon environmental and socio-economic assessment act, which was so eloquently introduced by the member for Yukon. The reason I want to make these remarks includes the fact that I was very proud to be involved with the Yukon self-government legislation in the House some years ago. I was particularly upset when the speaker from the Canadian Alliance today digressed into the morals and attitudes of members of Parliament and the tone of the House of Commons, when in fact I believe that we are following through morally on the legislation that went through the House, as we are on the Yukon umbrella final agreement, chapter 12, which says that a regime of the type represented by Bill C-2 must and should be put into place. I am delighted we were able to do that and that the member for Yukon introduced it.

The remarks of the member for Davenport are very well taken. The member has raised this point as a question: that the legislation will effectively replace the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and other assessment processes in the Yukon with an approach that is inclusive of other governments and decision making bodies and that ensures meaningful opportunities for public participation in assessments.

It is my understanding and I think the understanding of most members that this does not mean there is a lack of federal presence or a weakening of assessment standards. I think it means a move toward true sustainable development, integrating environmental, social and economic considerations when making decisions about projects. This is to the great benefit of future generations in the Yukon, and future generations in Canada. This is not something that has to do with just that one territory. The bill would move decision making closer to the people affected by the development projects. I agree with members here that it is a positive step.

However, the Government of Canada will continue to play a role in assessments involving federal departments, agencies, lands and regulations. Canada will be represented on the Yukon environmental and socio-economic assessment board, which has been mentioned and which will administer the assessment process in the Yukon.

As well, it should be made clear in regard to the process that would be put in place by Bill C-2, and the questions raised by the member for Davenport can be addressed again, that the legislation maintains the high standards Canadians have come to expect under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

It is my understanding that the new process will include all the improvements now being made to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act under Bill C-9, which is now before the committee of the member for Davenport, and I assume, by the way, that if committees ever get working in the House in this session the member will be the Chair of it.

Another benefit of the single process that would be established by Bill C-2 is that it goes beyond the traditional realm of environmental assessment to also take into account the social and economic impacts of a proposed budget. That is what I have said, by the way: It is a true interpretation of what sustainable development means. One cannot consider the environment out of the context of economic and social considerations of the people of the region concerned. Regardless of how small or large a project may be, assessors will be required to consider how it will affect people's quality of life, their livelihoods and the heritage and culture of Yukon first nations people, as well as, naturally, because it is an environmental thing, the impacts on land, water, air, fish and wildlife.

The single development assessment process provided for in Bill C-2 is a first for Canada. I am hopeful that one day it will serve as a model for other regions, which is why I said that today we are not simply considering something that is important for only the people of Yukon.

I trust, as has been the case with the previous three speakers, that the bill will have the support of all members of the House, including, eventually, the Canadian Alliance.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to participate in this debate. I would like to start by complimenting and congratulating the member for Yukon and the member for Winnipeg Centre for their very exhaustive, comprehensive and thoughtful analyses of the bill.

I was particularly struck by the comment made by the member for Winnipeg Centre when said that this was the most culturally sensitive bill he had seen ever come into the House. Coming from an opposition party, this is quite a compliment being paid to the government and those who have helped in preparing the bill.

Also, the member for Winnipeg Centre referred to this bill as resulting from the most comprehensive consultations that have ever taken place. I would imagine that he speaks from experience and that his comments are very relevant.

Unfortunately, I cannot say very much about the intervention by the member for Portage--Lisgar who trotted a number of old chestnuts into the debate which were not really necessary in the context of Bill C-2. However, in explaining the reasons for his opposition to Bill C-2, he referred to the fact the bill would be a disincentive to potential developers. I do not see anything in the bill that can be interpreted as being a disincentive to a potential developer.

On the contrary, if one were to read, as several members have already done, the purpose and the aim of the bill as indicated on page 1 is “to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in the Yukon”. If that is not adequate enough to give the member for Portage--Lisgar sufficient assurance, then he probably would find that assurance by reading clause 5 of the bill where the purposes of the proposed act are outlined. Clause 5(2) is extremely well worded. It states:

(2) The purposes of this Act are

(a) to provide a comprehensive, neutrally conducted assessment process...

(b) to require that, before projects are undertaken, their environmental and socio-economic effects to be considered;

If I had any criticism for this particular clause, I would have it in paragraph 5(2)(e) where it seems to me that perhaps it could be phrased in a more positive way. It states:

(e) to ensure that projects are undertaken in accordance with principles that foster beneficial socio-economic change without undermining the ecological and social systems on which communities and their residents, and societies in general, depend;

When the bill comes to committee, I would recommend an alternative wording by way of an amendment which would say, instead of “without undermining” which is a bit negative and detracts, the words “while enhancing the ecological and social systems on which communities and their residents”. Enhancing is a positive approach and it fits much better into the general purpose of the bill as outlined by the short title.

However this is not the place perhaps to make suggestions for amendments to the bill and I am sure that the member for Yukon in his very committed way will look at every positive possibility to strengthen the bill.

I would only like to say that we have a Canadian Environment Assessment Act and the bill ought to be responsive and on the same wave length and have the same degree of application and strength as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Therefore, I would like to put on the record some questions, namely, how will the two laws, Bill C-2 when it is proclaimed, and the existing Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, plus the current Bill C-9, which is in the process of being referred to committee, integrate? How will they come together? Will they be implemented in the same way, as I hope they will? Are the two laws reinforcing each other? Are the interpretations of each of the definitions in clause 2 of the bill the same? In other words, are they going to be applied in the same manner?

For instance, will the words “significant impact” be interpreted in the same manner in both laws once they become operative? For instance, will “mitigative measures” have the same significance in both laws? Will the word “assessment” have the same definition? Will the word “environment” have the same definition? Will the word “project” also be defined in the same manner? I do find some comfort and assurance in clauses 63 and 64. At this stage one can only raise these as potential questions for examination in committee and leave it at that, because I am sure that after all these consultations the bill will be examined very thoroughly.

My task is coming to an end. I will conclude by quoting a letter I received from the Yukon Conservation Society today in which the text, signed by executive director Christine Cleghorn, reads as follows:

Since the signing of the Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA) in 1993, the Yukon Conservation Society has participated in and followed with keen interest the development of new environmental assessment legislation for the Yukon.

At the present time, [the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act] is scheduled for review by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development...Despite having undergone a second round of public review this spring, the draft legislation remains a convoluted, labyrinthine document. For a jurisdiction with only 30,000 people and environmental assessment trends indicating that over 85% of projects assessed each year are small projects, it is our view that YESEAA is unnecessarily complex to the point of absurdity. It seems that during the negotiations the original vision in Chapter 12 was lost to trying to create a piece of legislation that is basically a super version of The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

We believe it would be beneficial for YESEAA to be heard by both of the above-noted Standing Committees.

These are, namely, the aboriginal affairs committee and the environment committee. This is not possible unless the House leader approves of that approach and I do not know whether this would be very productive and very helpful.

To conclude--

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate representing the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

I have listened to the debate very carefully as various members of different parties enunciated this afternoon. Bill C-2 is an act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic efforts of certain activities in the Yukon. The key word is process. In essence the bill establishes a process.

On first reviewing Bill C-2 it appears to make a lot of sense. It puts in place a new arm's-length assessment board to evaluate new projects. That is the primary goal. It makes sense to have all the stakeholders, all levels of governments, sitting at the same table. I know that is not an easy accomplishment.

The purpose of this board is to do both environmental and socio-economic assessments for all new proposals. In other words, assessment is the key function of the board. If the process had been totally inclusive then obviously it is rational to think that the selection of the board should be an inclusive one and all the stakeholders should be represented on the board.

All Canadians are concerned about our environment. They are concerned about waste, natural and man-made; the generation and disposal of waste; recycling; clean water and air; as well as the promotion of a clean environment. Canadians believe that it is the government's role to protect our environment as well as our resource base not only for today's generation, but for our future as well. In other words, all new development should be evaluated through the environmental lens. That is what Canadians will have to learn to deal with.

It is interesting to note that Bill C-2, in large part, will supersede the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act on most fronts. In principle, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada supports the process as established in Bill C-2.

This is not a perfect bill, as we have heard today. There is no such thing as a perfect bill when it comes to this place. That is why we have this process. This is second reading and from here it will go to committee. Hopefully we will make it more perfect in committee.

We believe that a single board to do the work is a good idea.

Let me make some comments about consultation. When the government says it has done consultation, 99% of the time I am a skeptic. In my five years in the House, having shepherded a number of bills through the House, I am always disappointed with the way that governments have consulted in the past on previous legislation.

With Bill C-2, I am pleasantly surprised that the government did some consultations. We have been told there have been two major rounds of public consultation during the development of the bill. The first was in the fall and winter of 1998 and the second in the summer and fall of 2001. Both rounds of consultation provided opportunities to all Yukon first nations to receive presentations and to provide their comments orally in their own communities. First nations were also invited to make written submissions.

The reason I am surprised is that for too long different levels of government, whether municipal, provincial or federal, tended to do business by themselves. What makes sense is to get people together to sit at the table to work out the problems, especially when something affects all three levels of government.

I am happy to hear that this process actually took place. If access had been truly given to all stakeholders, and if all levels of government were involved, then this can serve as a template for other provinces to follow down the road. From that perspective new ground has been tilled with this particular bill.

I must remind everyone in this place that government is about people and is for the people. That is why we must ensure that the process is an inclusive one on any decisions we make, and that we all sit at the table regardless of the level of government. We must think this through regardless of political affiliation. We are here to deliver service to the citizens and taxpayers who sent us here. This is what democracy is all about. From that perspective, Bill C-2, if validated to be true, reflects what democracy should be.

People in other regions will have taken a proactive approach with regard to the bill. It is in their best interests to be involved. It is the people's resource base and environment. We all know that it is also their future, both environmentally and socio-economically. They need to be involved in determining their own economic future.

As has already been mentioned today sustainability of all communities in Yukon is important as it is everywhere else in this country. Hopefully Bill C-2 would help bring that goal to reality. Bill C-2 should create an atmosphere of stability and even more important, it should develop an atmosphere of hope for the people who live in Yukon.

The PC Party of Canada supports Bill C-2 in principle. We support a grassroots driven approach to legislation that is long overdue. More legislation coming from that side of the House should follow this process. We look forward to working out the details of this legislation in committee. We need to validate both the process and the contents of this legislation. It would also be a good idea for the standing committee to look at the new regulations attached to the bill which are almost ready to be tabled. The details will be worked out in committee, and I look forward to debating them there.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased on behalf of the NDP to join the debate on Bill C-2 and, unlike the previous speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the bill because the NDP caucus is very much in support of Bill C-2.

We have watched with great interest and great care as we have gone through the various aspects of Yukon governance for aboriginal people, the first nations communities in Yukon. We see this as a logical next step as we implement the first nations self-governance in Yukon and give them greater control over their resources, their land base and the issues for which they very much deserve to have a voice.

Bill C-2, otherwise known as the Yukon environmental and socioeconomic assessment act, is a proposed federal statute that has been developed pursuant to chapter 12, the development assessment process, of the Yukon first nations final agreement, the umbrella agreement that was arrived at in the process of negotiating first nations self-governance. This is something we have been looking forward to and welcoming for quite a number of years.

The purpose of the Yukon environmental and socioeconomic assessment act is to ensure that the potential environmental and socioeconomic effects of projects are assessed prior to any level of government, federal, territorial or first nations, deciding whether it should be or should not be allowed to proceed.

For clarity we should know what we are talking about. I am not sure that the previous speaker from the Canadian Alliance actually ploughed through the very lengthy briefing book that we have here. He seemed to be raising issues that had very little to do with this important bill.

The process of assessing the effects of a project will be referred to as the assessment process while the process of deciding whether a project should go ahead will be referred to as the regulatory process. We should have those two avenues clear in our mind as we go into greater depth in our analysis of the bill.

It is actually critical to note that the leadership of the Council of Yukon First Nations wholly supports the bill at this time. This should be all that we need to know as parliamentarians in the federal House of Commons. Once we are satisfied that broad consultation took place among the stakeholders and once we are satisfied that the very people who would be most directly affected by the bill are satisfied with it, who are we to stand in the way of the bill moving through the various steps and being implemented into law? We could view it as arrogance to do otherwise and certainly as cheap politics to score political points for things that are entirely unrelated.

We would do a great disservice to the people of Yukon and certainly the first nations of Yukon if we were to ignore the representations they have made and the work they have done to put together Bill C-2 and to get it to the stage where we find it today.

I mentioned that we wanted to be satisfied that there has been broad public consultation, which is something I will deal with in more depth later, but we are satisfied in this case. In fact we could almost use this as a template model for how consultations should take place if we are serious about garnering real input and real representation from various groups. If we look at what they have done in Yukon over the past five or six years leading up to this particular bill, that is a process that we should be using for other legislation as well.

I note that there were two major rounds of complete touring consultation throughout Yukon. There was one for 90 days that went to every community and first nations village throughout the whole Yukon. Every first nations community not only had an opportunity to send in written submissions on draft one but each community had an opportunity to have an open public hearing in its community.

Taking what they had heard in that initial consultation process, the drafters of the legislation, the tripartite committee that was struck to put this together, took back what they heard, implemented those changes and went for another exhaustive tour around the whole territory two years later with draft two, which I believe was a 60 or 70 day exhaustive tour.

I do not think anyone here could safely say that there was not adequate consultation, nor that the input during those sessions was disregarded or not treated with the respect that it deserved. We are satisfied in this case that genuine consultation did take place and led to what we think, as I have said at the outset, is a very worthy document.

As I mentioned earlier, we have two separate routes here. We are dealing first with the regulatory process and the assessment process. Dealing with the assessment bodies, as to who will make the assessment, the Yukon environmental and socioeconomic development act would establish the Yukon environmental and socioeconomic assessment board. It would also establish six designated offices located throughout Yukon. Again, what could be viewed as a model of decentralization, this board would not be concentrated solely in Whitehorse. There would be an opportunity to have fully staffed offices spread throughout the Yukon in the regions of the north.

The board would be made up of seven members, three of whom would make up the executive committee. The Council of Yukon First Nations and Canada would each nominate one member to the executive committee. The hon. member from the Canadian Alliance, the Indian affairs critic for the Canadian Alliance, said that this could make room for patronage appointments, that there may be an opportunity for abuse in the composition of this board. This was dealt with in the early stages. How this board will be struck will be critical for the ongoing success of the operations of the board and how it will be constituted has been set out in Bill C-2.

The CYFN, the Council of Yukon First Nations, and Canada would each nominate one member of the executive committee. The Minister of Indian Affairs, after consulting with the two other executive committee members, one of which, as I have said, would be nominated by the Council of Yukon First Nations, would select the third executive committee member who would be the chair of the board. I do not see room for abuse in this process unless the hon. member from the Alliance sees something that I am not seeing.

Two of the four remaining board members would be appointed also by the Council of Yukon First Nations, while the others would be appointed, one by Canada and one by the government of Yukon. If there is room for abuse or a patronage appointment, it would be for one member of the seven member board. I am not here to say that kind of patronage appointment never happens. Maybe the Government of Canada or the ruling party of the day will use some kind of a patronage appointment but it will only be for one board member because the possibility has already been contemplated and it has been nipped in the bud. It has been eliminated given the structure of the committee that is laid out in Bill C-2.

I admire the Alliance member for raising the possibility of patronage appointments but our caucus is satisfied that there is no such room for abuse in this particular process. Therefore that is not one of the justifiable grounds for trying to block or to stall this important bill.

Under the Yukon environmental and socioeconomic development act, the board may establish panels to conduct panel reviews. These panels must be made up from board members. Again, I do not understand where the room for abuse comes from.

One of the features that I particularly like about the bill is that six small communities would have designated offices, although I am not sure which six communities would have them. I presume Dawson City would be one and possibly Old Crow, Teslin, Tagish and Mayo the other ones. I am not sure which communities would get these various offices but they will be located in each of the assessment districts.

It is easy to say that Ross River and area could be considered one development area. Certainly the Dawson City area and the gold fields, et cetera, is another with the mining interests in that area. Haines Junction and the far western part of Yukon might be considered another area. However the boundaries of the assessment districts and the location of these designated offices would be worked out in the implementation phase of the YESAA.

On the board's recommendation, the number of designated offices and the assessment districts can be increased or decreased to meet operational requirements. In other words, flexibility is built into the bill so that we can increase or decrease the number of regional offices to meet the various application demands that may be put forward.

The logical question is: What sort of activities would be subject to assessment? I believe the Alliance member was fearmongering when he said that some business venture may come forward and have its project nipped in the bud by this new authority in Yukon that may scare away investors and turn down their applications. If the member had read the briefing book or perhaps listened he would know the sorts of projects that would be subject to assessment and what project's assessment would be waived, deemed unnecessary or exempted from the assessment process.

The project list regulator will be the body that will determine which activities are subject to assessment and which ones are not. The goal of the PLR is to catch those projects which pose a potential risk to the environment and/or socioeconomic impacts while ensuring that activities which do not pose any risks are exempted.

In other words, if there is no environmental or socioeconomic risk to the activity that is being proposed, it does not have to be subject to an assessment review. It is only activities or enterprises which do pose an environmental risk or a socioeconomic impact on Yukon that would be subject to the assessment. I do not see how that differs from the current status quo, which is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as it stands today, which this bill will supercede once it is implemented.

Under declarations, the parties recognize that there may be some activities that do not pose any risk under normal circumstances but, because of special conditions, the risk may be increased and therefore the activities should be assessed. The type of things they are getting at there are culturally sensitive issues, issues that have a social impact as much as an economic impact and as much an environmental impact.

To address that, Bill C-2 provides for exempted activities to be declared where any level of government with authority for the activity is of the opinion that there is a risk of impact. This again is contemplated and a clear course of action is laid out within Bill C-2 that might be dealt with if necessary.

If several governments are decision makers for a project, they must all consent before an activity is declared to be a project. This is intended to allow an activity that would not normally require an assessment to be assessed if there are particular concerns. For example, if it were to be carried out in a sensitive area or if there were issues of cumulative impacts that were not part of the original activity or enterprise.

The entry point also is pointed out or itemized and assessed in Bill C-2 that most projects will enter the assessment process at the designated office level in the region in which the enterprise will take place. A small number of large or complex projects will enter into the assessment process directly at the executive committee and will not undergo any assessment by a regional office. This would have seemed logical, quite straight forward and easy to follow had the people debating the bill today actually gone through the briefing notes.

When the designated office makes an evaluation on a project, it will be subject to further review from the central board as to whether it should immediately go ahead, whether it should go ahead with specific terms and conditions, whether it should be barred or whether it should be referred further to the executive committee for its recommendation as well. The executive committee has an alternate screening role. The projects that are submitted to the executive committee will be screened again for the same four tests. The committee ultimately can order that perhaps the project should go to a public panel review or some other form of public consultation review.

As members can see, this is perhaps why the bill took a number of years to get to this stage. It is very complex and it is difficult to foresee all the possible implications or possibilities that might come forward and to deal with those eventualities.

The boards and the bodies can issue documents allowing a project to go ahead without any further review. I do not think I will deal with those technical aspects any longer because I am aware of the time limitations.

I will try to answer the question in which most people in the House should be interested, which is this. What will the Yukon environmental and socio-economic assessment act mean for Yukon first nations? That ought to be the ultimate question with which we should be dealing today and with which we should be seized.

We believe that Bill C-2, or the YESAA, will fundamentally change the role of first nations in environmental assessment in Yukon. Perhaps that is really more to the point to which the member from the Canadian Alliance was objecting. We have noticed a pattern with the aboriginal affairs critics from the Canadian Alliance systematically opposing every move toward true self-governance for aboriginal people and systematically trying to cite reason after reason why aboriginal people should not be given the next stage in their own self-determination.

We believe this will change the role of first nations in environmental assessments in Yukon because under the current assessment regime, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, first nations have had very little opportunity to participate in any meaningful way with these environmental assessments. Under Bill C-2 they will play a much larger and more significant role.

Some of the issues of serious concern to first nations such as the socioeconomic and cultural effects, which were not given any consideration under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, will be a very important part of every assessment under the new YESAA.

For further clarity, under the YESAA, assessments will now be conducted by neutral assessment bodies rather than by self-assessment by government alone. This is a fundamental change. This will be an independent board made up by stakeholders nominated by first nations and the other players, the federal and territorial governments themselves. These issues will be dealt with by the board rather than by the government itself, which obviously led to a certain conflict of interest.

The assessment bodies must seek the views of any first nation that will be affected by the project. In other words, the mandatory consultation process is built in here. It will not be left subject to the courts. It will not be required to be heard. A first nations community would have to seek legal redress and demand to be heard. That process is built into Bill C-2, much to the satisfaction of the people involved.

Also integral part of Bill C-2 is that every existing project must consider as an aspect of going ahead the need to protect first nations rights under the final agreements, under the umbrella agreement. In other words, there can no longer be any doubt, and we do not have to go to the courts again, that any developer must consider first nations' rights when they undertake an enterprise.

We have had recent court rulings like the Haida ruling in B.C. dealing with forestry issues. For the government to do any development affecting first nations and treaty rights, the consultation process is necessary. However up until today third parties, business enterprises, did not necessarily have to take into full consideration treaty rights of first nations people that might be affected by the economic enterprise being undertaken. Now, under Bill C-2, for any future development of Yukon, it is mandatory and binding that the need to protect first nations' rights under final agreements, or first nations' special relationship with the wilderness environment or first nations cultures, traditions, health and lifestyles must be taken into consideration before a permit will be issued for that development or that enterprise within Yukon.

Also within Bill C-2, one of the biggest changes for first nations people in Yukon, is that both assessment bodies and other bodies must give full and fair consideration to traditional knowledge. The words traditional knowledge show up in Bill C-2, as do references to culture, tradition, health, lifestyle and first nations' special relationship with their wilderness environment. There has never been a document so culturally sensitive when it comes to first nations people as this bill, so it is shocking to me to hear any major party in the House of Commons speak openly that it cannot support it.

This is breaking new ground. This is forging a whole new path for our relationship with aboriginal people and economic development. If we hear every party in the House of Commons saying that the answer to the atrocious conditions is economic development, well here is the acceptable road map as negotiated between the affected stakeholders in Yukon by which such economic development can and shall take place with sensitivity toward the special relationship to the wilderness environment, the cultural, the economic, the traditional, the health and the lifestyle issues that any such enterprise might affect.

As well the assessments of every project and existing project must consider the potential environmental and socioeconomic effects which include effects on economies, health, culture, traditions, lifestyles and heritage resources of the project. In other words, if a mining enterprise might interfere with a traditional fishery, even if one is of a much larger magnitude than the other, the traditional enterprise must be taken into consideration before the new economic development enterprise is given a permit and allowed to go forward. That was not the case.

That might seem like common sense but up until today, until we pass Bill C-2, that has not been the case. That is why we have a backlog of 200 such cases before the courts today. The only redress aboriginal people have, if they want consideration of those cultural issues, is to go to court and fight for it, unless someone voluntarily recognizes their right to have those traditional issues recognized.

Another effect of Bill C-2 is that the participation of Yukon Indian people in the assessment process is guaranteed. It is not something that will be granted when it is not an inconvenience and be withheld when it is inconvenient. It will be guaranteed.

Federal and territorial decision bodies much consult with the first nations without final agreements. In other words, those first nations within Yukon that are not members of the Council of Yukon First Nations, and there are some, must be satisfied as well. They are being folded into this umbrella deal. Maybe that is the wrong term because we refer to the Yukon self-government act to this day as the umbrella framework agreement. However those first nations who are not currently members of the Council of Yukon First Nations will have their concerns dealt with as well. I think they are the Kaska and the Kwanlin Dun, and there may be others. I believe that 9 out of the 14 first nations are members of the Council of Yukon First Nations.

Some, for whatever reasons, are not currently members of that plenary organization. They may be in the future but in the interim federal and territorial decision bodies must consult with the first nations that are not part of any final agreements so far, before issuing decision documents for projects that will affect their traditional territories. In other words, some activity or enterprise could take place on areas where current claims are in effect. That would be wrong and might jeopardize future negotiations and the settlement of those claims. We all believe that it is in everyone's best interests to have those claims settled and nothing that takes place should interfere with the progress being made as we work to finish those negotiations.

Self-governing first nations will be decision bodies with respect to projects on settlement land. This is a whole new status. This contemplates that we have to get our minds around a whole new way of dealing with economic development on first nations land, and that is where Bill C-2 breaks new ground. It really shows us a template, a model, which has been arrived at through an exhaustive consultation process and it shows us perhaps a template for future settlements in other parts of Canada. Maybe it is a good thing.

Earlier today I met with the representatives of the Council of Yukon First Nations and said that perhaps the reason that we arrived at such a civilized, thorough, comprehensive and almost unanimously accepted document is that Yukon is kind of a nice, manageable size. Yukon is almost a microcosm of the rest of Canada when it comes to relationships between first nations and the federal government. Maybe because the population is small and manageable enough we have done it here as a template, as a pilot project, and perhaps this model will work in future negotiations as well.

The implementation of the Yukon environmental and socio-economic assessment act or Bill C-2 is structured in such a way that part 1 will come into force on royal assent while parts 2 and 3 will come into force up to 18 months later. This will allow the parties to make appointments to the board early on so that the board can begin to develop and put in place rules and bylaws, hire staff for the board in designated offices, et cetera. After 18 months or less the actual assessment process will come into place. Therefore, it is fair to say that no new projects will be developed in Yukon under the rules of the new assessment act until some time in 2004.

I began my remarks by saying that Bill C-2 finds its origins in chapter 12 of the umbrella framework agreement. It is instructive to those who perhaps have not dealt with this bill very much to realize what tests have to be met for Bill C-2 to truly reflect the details of chapter 12 of the umbrella framework agreement. The chapter was to provide for a development assessment process that recognized and enhanced, to the extent practicable, the traditional economy of Yukon Indian people and their special relationship with the wilderness environment.

The directive was to put in place a development assessment process that provided for guaranteed participation by Yukon Indian people and utilized the knowledge and experience of Yukon Indian people in the development assessment process. Does Bill C-2 meet that test? I argue, upon reading the bill, that yes it does.

Does Bill C-2 meet the test that we need a process which protects and promotes the well-being of Yukon Indian people and their communities, of other Yukon residents and the interests of other Canadians? Does it meet that test? Again we are satisfied that, after an exhaustive consultation process of all stakeholders, there is unanimous consensus virtually that yes in fact Bill C-2 does promote and protect the well-being of not only Yukon Indian people and their communities but of other Yukon residents as well and the interests of other Canadians in general.

Does Bill C-2 protect and maintain environmental quality and ensure that projects are undertaken in a manner consistent with the principles of sustainable development? That is what the bill is about. The very substance of the bill is that it must be in keeping with the principles of sustainable development but with special consideration of the cultural, traditional and unique relationship that first nations have with the land.

Does Bill C-2 protect and maintain heritage resources? Bill C-2 specifically refers to heritage resources. Again, it is groundbreaking and precedent setting legislation that takes into consideration those intangibles, things that do not necessarily have a large market economy value, but have value in the traditional lifestyles of aboriginal people.

Does Bill C-2 provide for a comprehensive and timely review of the environmental and socio-economic effects of any project before the approval of the project? Contrary to what the member from the Canadian Alliance was saying, yes it does. It has guidelines and time frames. We will not have cases where a development application is held up for years and years. That is the status quo. That is what we have now. We might have a mining enterprise that wants to start an operation 60 miles outside of Dawson City and it might wait five years for all the various assessments to take place such as the water surface assessments, the transboundary assessments and the exhausting assessments that need to take place.

What would take time, what would bog down and bury a number of economic development projects in Yukon is if Bill C-2 were to wind up in the courts. What if the first nation community that is close by says that this enterprise fails to take into consideration its historic right to have input into this project and it takes two or three years for the courts to deal with that case?

That is when venture capital runs scared because venture capital seeks stability and a process that it can trust and rely on, with a known timeframe to get an answer of whether the project will be reviewed or not.

Bill C-2 would give that satisfaction and that comfort to investors, that at least there is a mechanism in place that would not be challenged in the courts and that within a specific timeframe they would get an answer as to whether the project should or would go ahead or not.

Does Bill C-2 provide for a comprehensive and timely review of the environmental and socio-economic effects of any project before the approval of the project?

Again, to meet the tests of finding its origins in chapter 12 of the umbrella framework agreement it has to. The experts in the field, many of whom are in the gallery watching today, the people who have spent the last seven years developing this, are satisfied that Bill C-2 would meet this test, that it would provide for a timely review of the environmental and socio-economic effects of any project before the approval of the project.

Will Bill C-2, upon its introduction, avoid duplication in the review process for projects? This is an issue that was put forward on behalf of the developers and business interests that may be affected.

Does this avoid duplication in the review process for projects and, to the greatest extent practicable, does it provide certainty to all the affected parties and project proponents with respect to procedures, information requirements, time requirements and costs?

These are key questions that need to be answered before economic development venture takes place in Yukon.

We are satisfied again that Bill C-2 is comprehensive enough in its scope and its mandate that these pressing questions would be addressed, the business community can feel comfortable that these issues are addressed and that all affected parties and project proponents would be satisfied that the duplication of procedures, information requirements, time requirements and costs would be of be avoided with Bill C-2.

Will Bill C-2 require project proponents to consider the environmental and socio-economic effects of projects and project alternatives and to incorporate appropriate mitigative measures in the design of projects?

I will leave that one up to the experts who have reviewed these cases. They are satisfied that Bill C-2 would address that concern and that those are the objectives of chapter 12 of the umbrella framework agreement that must be met in order to call Bill C-2 an accurate reflection of that chapter.

We in the NDP caucus believe that a large part of the success of reaching consensus with Bill C-2 is due to what we are pleased to point to as the most comprehensive consultation process that we know of in issues dealing with aboriginal affairs.

It is a point of legislation that with any government legislation implemented that may affect or may have an impact on treaty rights, or traditional rights, or the constitutional rights, or even the common law rights of aboriginal people, there must be a round of consultation. However the confusion has come, and it has again come to a head under the first nations governance act, or as the aboriginal affairs standing committee deals with the first nations governance act, just what is broad consultation? What is the definition of broad consultation? What satisfies the tests of having been fairly and adequately consulted if that is what is mandated in the legislation?

I would like to speak to that briefly because we believe if the fruit of genuine consultation is a quality piece of legislation, such as Bill C-2, then what can we anticipate with Bill C-7, the first nations governance act, with a consultation process that all parties agree is largely flawed, incomplete and less than comprehensive?

It is instructive to look at the principles of consultation and see if they were met in the consultation leading up to Bill C-2. Can we look at the methodology used for consultation in Yukon and find the formula, the recipe, and the methodology that could be implemented elsewhere?

I should start by saying that aboriginal people, through their first nations plenary organizations, such as the Assembly of First Nations, have some specific and definite thoughts as to what constitutes genuine consultation. In their view it is key and paramount and fundamental, in a true consultation process, that there be no predetermined agenda brought to the table. In other words if it is a genuine consultation, if one is really seeking the input of the people that one is asking their opinion of one does not put an agenda on the table and say, “How do you like it?” The agenda is developed jointly. The parties, together, fashion the agenda.

I believe that is one of the things that was met in the Bill C-2 consultation process because they did not shop a finished document around. They took draft documents to the people, they listened to the input that they received, they took that input back and they implemented it into draft 2, draft 3, et cetera.

Another basic tenet for fair consultation is that the parties comprise federal and first nations governments meeting on a nation-to-nation, government-to-government basis. In other words, the historic imbalance in the power relationship between those two parties must be set aside for the consultation to be viewed as genuine, sincere and meaningful.

A third basic tenet would be that the parties exchange information, views and comments as equals and conduct their business with mutual respect and in good faith. There have been books written on what it means to negotiate in good faith. I do not have to cite the leading authorities on those legal definitions. In the House we all know what good faith means.

With regard to Bill C-2 and the consultations leading up to it, I have not heard anything in my experience after meeting in Yukon with the Council of Yukon First Nations and now meeting today with representatives from the Council of Yukon First Nations that would indicate that there was anything but good faith in the consultation process.

These consultations should be open and agreements be openly arrived at. In other words, there should be no selective or private side meetings, for example. If we are comparing a good consultation process with a flawed consultation process, like we saw in the first nations governance agreement, that is exactly what happened.

When the minister was finding that he was not hearing what he wanted to hear at the open consultation meetings, a bunch of side deals were made and groups were split off and hived out of communities. They were offered financial incentives to cooperate with the consultation process or even threatened with financial punishment if they failed to cooperate with it. That should stand as an example of what we do not want to see in present or future consultation processes.

Another basic requirement should be that first nations obtain and be given the fullest information to enable them to make sound and reasoned judgments.

The NDP caucus is satisfied that Bill C-2 is a bill that is worthy of our support. We see it as another step toward the realization of a dream for aboriginal people, for first nations communities in Yukon who are seeking self-determination and true self-government. The management of their own land and resources is key and integral to true self-government. Bill C-2, by putting the board in charge of the environmental assessment of developments, would go a long way to putting them in charge of the actual development of those resources.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address the House on the second reading of Bill C-2, Yukon environmental and socio-economic assessment act, also known YESAA and formerly known as DAP. I am confident in seeking the support of hon. members to make it into law. I will spend the next 25 minutes giving a broad outline of the bill and how it will work.

The bill has been eight years in the making and I ask that hon. members give it careful consideration. My confidence in the bill arises from a number of factors.

The proposed legislation will fulfill an outstanding land claim commitment which is a priority of the government. In doing so it will establish a single development assessment process for projects on all federal, territorial and first nations lands in Yukon, which in turn will create certainty and promote sustainable development across the territory. I have great confidence in the bill because it was developed in Yukon by and for Yukoners through an extremely inclusive process.

Hon. members are well aware of the merits of the development assessment process. It helps us to identify a project's adverse effects on the environment, wildlife and people before they occur. This allows projects to be designed and regulated in ways that are not only economically efficient and rewarding but also compatible with a healthy environment and society.

Assessments can do more than avoid unwarranted consequences. They can also result in positive impacts. For example, development assessment processes can lead to lasting social and economic benefits in local communities, such as new employment and business opportunities. They can also help us to identify measures to protect existing livelihoods.

The practice of development assessment is not new in Canada. It has been around in one form or another for many years. It is now part of public decision making at all levels of government.

Federally the environmental assessment and review process guidelines order apply the principles of development assessment to certain projects that involved the Government of Canada as far back as 1984. In 1995 these guidelines were replaced by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, or CEAA, which hon. members know is in the midst of a statutory review.

When Bill C-2 becomes law it will functionally replace the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act for most projects in Yukon, although under certain limited circumstances the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act can still apply.

Why is this happening? The short answer is that chapter 12 of the Yukon umbrella final agreement requires that a new development assessment process be put in place for Yukon. This agreement was signed by the Governments of Canada and Yukon and the Council of Yukon Indians in 1993 and given effect in 1995 by Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act. The umbrella final agreement, UFA, is a template for Yukon first nations final agreements and self-government agreements which to date have been signed with 8 of the 14 Yukon first nations.

The first nations in Yukon are the Carcross/Tagish First Nation, the Champagne and Aishihik First Nation, the Teslin Tlingit Council, the Ta'an Kwach'an First Nation, the Kluane First Nation, the Kwanlin Dun First Nation, the Liard First Nation, the Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation, the Nacho Nyak Dun First Nation, the Ross River Dena Council, the Selkirk First Nation, the Vuntut Gwitchin Tribal Council, the Tr'ondek Hwech'in First Nation and the White River First Nation.

As a sign that this is a cooperative project between various levels and orders of government, I am delighted that today in Ottawa are Chief Eric Morris of the Teslin Tlingit Council, Chief Joe Linklater of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, Chief Darren Taylor of the Tr'ondek Hwech'in First Nation, the president of Air North and Vuntut Development Corporation, Steve Mills, and Daryn Leas another member of the team.

At the time of the signing of the umbrella final agreement the Council for Yukon Indians, now known as the Council for Yukon First Nations, or CYFN, and the Yukon territorial government, YTG, agreed to work with the Government of Canada to establish the development and assessment process called for in chapter 12 of the UFA. Bill C-2 is a product of that collaborative effort.

Fulfilling Canada's outstanding commitments to aboriginal people is one of our most important obligations as legislators. It is in fact the cornerstone for renewing our relationship with aboriginal people.

Bill C-2 would see Canada fulfill its promise to 14 Yukon first nations.

Besides the fulfilment of Canada's obligations under the umbrella final agreement, the bill pursues other worthy goals.

By establishing a process that will ensure that the development activities contemplated for the Yukon will not harm the environment, residents or communities in the area, Bill C-2 will protect the quality of life in the Yukon. It will help preserve the livelihood of individuals as well as the heritage and culture of the first nations people of the Yukon. It will help protect the land, water, air, fish and wildlife of the Yukon. These are all worthwhile goals which deserve our support.

As hon. members can appreciate, this is a detailed and technically complex bill. I do not intend to review it in detail today. Instead I would like to focus on some key elements to the process that would be put in place by Bill C-2 and its supporting regulations.

Essentially Bill C-2 would establish a territory wide process to assess the impacts of development activities in Yukon for which a federal, territorial or first nations government is a proponent and a regulator, and is providing discretionary interest in land or, in the case of the federal government, is providing funding.

Hon. members will recall the recent passage of Bill C-39 in the House. That new Yukon Act ratifies the devolution of many powers and responsibilities to the government of Yukon. Those authorities given to the territory ensure that Yukon will now be able to enact its own environmental assessment legislation to mirror the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. In this way Yukon will be in a position to ensure that development proposals are evaluated in the interval between devolution and the coming into force of the bill before us today. That territorial legislation will bridge the gap until the bill is enacted and implemented.

One must consider what might happen in Yukon without Bill C-2. There eventually could be as many as 16 development assessment processes in the territory, 1 for each of the 14 first nations, 1 for the federal government and 1 for the territorial government. With such a scenario a development process could be subject to not one or even two, but possibly three or four assessment processes, each with its own requirement, its own guideline, its own decision points and its own timelines. This single development assessment process is in the best interests of all stakeholders.

A known and consistent regime will provide greater certainty for project components which in turn will help encourage investment in Yukon. It will also provide more certainty for government and regulators and more consistent protection of the environment and the livelihood and culture of Yukon first residents.

How do we plan to implement such a regime? Allow me to take a few moments to explain how this new development activity assessment process will work and how it will be implemented under Bill C-2.

As hon. members can see, the bill has three parts. Part 1 will come into force immediately upon enactment and deals largely with the administrative aspects of the development process. For example, part 1 will establish the Yukon environmental and socio-economic assessment board to administer the development assessment process and ensure that assessments are conducted in a neutral and efficient manner. The seven member board will be an institution of public government with an office in Whitehorse. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will appoint its members based upon nominations from the federal and territorial governments as well as the Council of Yukon First Nations which will nominate three board members. The minister will also select three board members to act as the executive committee, including an individual nominated by the Council of Yukon First Nations. Consistent with the principle of local people making decisions about local matters, at all times the majority of the board members must be Yukon residents.

Part 1 of Bill C-2 would also provide for the establishment of six assessment districts across Yukon, each of which would have a designated office to assess projects. This decentralized approach will make the process more accessible to those people who are most likely affected by a project. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, DIAND, currently is working with the Yukon government and first nations to establish the boundaries for these districts within input from Yukoners.

Part 2 of Bill C-2 describes the assessment process. To provide for the smooth implementation of this new assessment regime, part 2 would come into force as much as, but no longer than, 18 months after part 1. This would give the board time to hire and train staff, to establish bylaws for the board and designated offices, to develop budgets and to establish procedural rules and public registries of information about development assessments.

Part 2 broadly describes the types of projects that will require an assessment, which, as I noted earlier, essentially includes any project in Yukon that is proposed by the federal, territorial or a first nations government that requires a decision from one of these governments or that requires federal funding. Specific activities that would be assessed under the act are identified in the project proposed list regulations, which also identify activities that would be exempted from this assessment.

Hon. members who have reviewed Bill C-2 will know that it provides for three types of assessments. The most basic is called the designated office evaluation. This is where most projects will enter the assessment process. At this level, the development assessment professionals will evaluate a proposed project and will either decide that it needs further assessment, or will recommend that the project be allowed to proceed, or that it be allowed to proceed with terms and conditions to mitigate adverse effects, or that it should not be allowed to proceed. If a more detailed analysis is required, the project can be referred by this designated office to the board's executive committee.

Certain large projects will be subject to an executive committee screening belonging to the process at this second level. Activities to fall into this category will be clearly identified in the project list regulations.

The executive committee will also screen projects referred to it by a designated office. In most cases the executive committee will make a recommendation on whether or not the project should proceed either with or without terms and conditions. However where the executive committee determines that a project might have a significant adverse effect, raise significant public concerns or involves untested technology, the project will be referred for a panel review. This is the third and last type of review. The small projects locally go in the designated offices, the bigger projects to the executive level screening and the very large and complex projects to the panel review.

The panel review is the most detailed level of assessment under Bill C-2 and would probably be used for only a few projects each year. A panel would be established by the executive committee to conduct an indepth assessment of the proposed project. As is the case with other levels of assessment, at the end of the review the panel would recommend that the project proceed, that it proceed with terms and conditions or that it not proceed. Regardless of the assessment level, all assessments must consider the same basic criteria. These include the purpose of the project and all its stages.

As well assessments must consider any possible environmental or socioeconomic impacts in Yukon or elsewhere and any possible cumulative impacts from a combination of the project and any other existing or proposed activities in Yukon or elsewhere. Assessments will also consider whether there are other ways to carry out the activity that might avoid or reduce these impacts. Protecting the rights of all Yukon residents will be an assessment criteria.

An underlying principle of this new process is that everyone with an interest in the project, including the general public, must have the opportunity to participate in and be informed about these assessments. One way this will be achieved is by placing the information and notices about assessments on to the public registries that I mentioned earlier and inviting comments from all parties.

Input will also be sought from government agencies and first nations that have provided notice of interest in assessment and from relevant land use planning commissions in Yukon. This early input should help smooth the project through subsequent regulatory processes.

It should be clear now that designated offices, the executive committee and panels can only make recommendations. The final decisions on projects would be made by decision bodies as defined in this bill. Depending on the projects location, category or authorization required, a decision body could be a first nation, the territorial minister, a federal agency, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or another minister designated by the governor in council. The appropriate decision body would consider the recommendations of the assessment body as well as any information and traditional knowledge accompanying the recommendations. At the end of the process, the decision body may accept, vary or reject the recommendations arising from an assessment.

The new process ensures a high level of transparency by requiring both the assessors and the decision bodies to report publicly in writing to explain their assessment recommendations and decisions.

The period of time within which a decision body must release this report, called a decision document, will be specified in the proposed time lines, decision body's coordination regulations. Public input into those, as with all regulations, could be made when they are gazetted. There are also provisions and regulations to provide time lines on the various assessment processes.

Hon. members should also know that a project approved by a decision body will not necessarily proceed. There may be regulatory or policy reasons why it would not be authorized. A decision body is under no legal obligation to authorize a project, regardless of an approval made under the Yukon environmental and socio-economic assessment act.

If though a decision body does authorize the project, it must do so consistent with the decision document issued. However a project that has been turned down in a decision body will not be allowed to proceed.

If a project goes forward, decision bodies must each conform with their own decision documents when issuing authorizations or carrying out the project. Any violation of a condition imposed by a decision body will be subject to penalties under the existing laws and regulations found, for example, in the Fisheries Act or Yukon's Environment Act.

As I said at the outset, the development assessment process described in Bill C-2 will be the only assessment process that will apply once enacted to most projects in Yukon.

Having said that, if a proposed project is referred to a panel review, the Minister of the Environment, who is responsible for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, could become involved in selecting the type of panel and setting its terms of reference, or in establishing a joint panel with the Yukon environmental and socio-economic assessment board.

Bill C-2 also includes provisions to encourage cooperation and coordination of assessments with the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, Screening Committee and Review Board, in the North Slope of Yukon. The legislation would preclude duplication with that review board and provide several other mechanisms to avoid or minimize process duplication.

Under certain circumstances, Bill C-2 would allow for assessments of activities outside Yukon for which effects would likely to occur within Yukon. The bill also identifies circumstances in which the executive committee would have the authority to establish a request by the responsible government, a panel, to review an existing project, or to review plans, or programs, or policies or proposals that were not yet considered to be projects for the purposes of the bill.

Once part 2 of Bill C-2 comes into force, an activity prescribed under the bill and its regulations will not be allowed to proceed until an assessment of its environmental and socioeconomic effects has been completed and decision documents have been issued.

However, to facilitate the transition to the new process, part 3 of the bill stipulates that any assessment that was initiated prior to part 2 coming into force will be exempted from the new process unless a subsequent CEAA referral is made to a higher level of assessment.

Part 3 also contains consequential amendments to the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act and the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act. There is also a consequential amendment to the Yukon First National Self-Government Act to ensure the first nations have adequate tools, primarily fine levels, to effectively implement and enforce their YESAA decisions.

As I note at the outset, the umbrella final agreement was signed in 1993 and implementation began in 1995. As hon. members can see, it has taken some time to address the agreement's requirement for a territory wide development assessment process and it was time well used. Much of that time has been spent in consultation with stakeholder groups and, as a result, we have a much better bill and a much better process than might otherwise be the case. First nations in particular will have a more meaningful role in assessments in Yukon.

It is safe to say that virtually everyone in Yukon had an opportunity to comment on the bill and many did. The department released drafts of the legislation in 1998 and in 2001 for public review. It has since undertaken two separate tours of Yukon to meet with Yukon first nations and other residents to review and discuss these drafts.

This took time but it was time well spent. Those in Yukon who participated believe the process was inclusive, transparent and worthwhile. I am confident in the merits of this proposed legislation. I believe that a single assessment process is by far the best approach for Yukon given the unique circumstances of land ownership and governance in the territory.

I believe this process will provide certainty for all parties and that this in turn will encourage investment in Yukon while protecting the environment and first nations traditional livelihoods and culture.

Settling claims eliminates an enormous barrier to economic development and in turn improves the quality of life of first nations communities and that of their non-aboriginal neighbours living in the Yukon.

Investors can then proceed with confidence and first nations can negotiate from positions of strength. Bill C-2 represents an important step forward in implementing a commitment to first nations under the Yukon umbrella final agreement which is a priority for the government and for Canadians.

The proposed legislation deserves our support on all counts. With that in mind, I ask all hon. members to join me in voting to send it to committee for review.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved that Bill C-2, an act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the government will not stop functioning. It works all the time, seven days a week.

This afternoon we will continue with Bill C-4, the nuclear waste legislation. It will be followed by Bill C-2 respecting the Yukon and Bill C-3, if we have time available, respecting the Canada pension plan investment legislation.

Tomorrow shall be the sixth and final day of the address debate. This will result in a deferred vote until our return. Next week is a constituency week for all hon. members. When we return we will pick up the legislative agenda where we left off today. I will add that Bill C-14, the diamonds legislation, was introduced earlier today.

I should like to announce that the first allotted day shall take place on Thursday, October 24.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-2, an act to establish a process for assessing the environmental and socio-economic effects of certain activities in Yukon.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)