Bill C-15 (Historical)

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulations

Part 1 enacts the Northwest Territories Act and implements certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement. It also amends and repeals other Acts and certain orders and regulations.
Part 2 amends the Territorial Lands Act to modify the offence and penalty regime and create an administrative monetary penalty scheme. It also adds inspection powers.
Part 3 amends the Northwest Territories Waters Act to make changes to the jurisdiction and structure of the Inuvialuit Water Board, to add a regulation-making authority for cost recovery, to establish time limits with respect to the making of certain decisions, to modify the offence and penalty regime, to create an administrative monetary penalty scheme and to make other changes.
Part 4 amends the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act to consolidate the structure of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, to establish time limits for environmental assessments and reviews and to expand ministerial policy direction to land use planning boards and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. This Part also amends the administration and enforcement provisions of Part 3 of that Act and establishes an administration and enforcement scheme in Part 5 of that Act, including the introduction of enforceable development certificates. Moreover, it adds an administrative monetary penalty scheme to the Act. Lastly, this Part provides for the establishment of regional studies and regulation-making authorities for, among other things, consultation with aboriginal peoples and for cost recovery and incorporates into that Act the water licensing scheme from the Northwest Territories Waters Act as part of the implementation of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement.

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine again for seeing these issues clearly. I think anyone who looks at the bill will agree that the sections that take apart the regional boards are completely in violation of Supreme Court decisions and in violation of the principles of treaty-making. I find it so deeply shocking.

I cannot see any explanation for it other than some sort of back-door lobbying by larger industries that have not been busy in the area before and find that these boards look complicated, as they have not actually worked with them. I cannot see a solid explanation grounded in evidence for forcing through these changes along with the devolution parts that we would all support.

I wonder if the member has any theories as to why we are facing such a terrible bill, which is full of “poison chalices”, as the member said.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a government that seems bent on ideologically driven bills rather than science-based, consultation-based bills. We have seen this on many occasions with so many of the bills in this House of Commons since the Conservative government formed a majority.

The Conservatives are not addressing the real needs of people on the ground. They address their ideological needs, which is a mistake. In the long run, we are going to pay dearly for those choices.

That said, devolution is still important. We need to empower people in the Northwest Territories to the same degree that we empower people elsewhere in this country. People have the right to make decisions for themselves, and the bill would help address that issue. For that reason, it is worth supporting.

However, it is unfortunate that the bill does not address the other concerns that the people of the Northwest Territories have brought to us. We need to address the concerns as best we can. The bill addresses some of those concerns, and we are happy to see that it addresses the major question of devolution, but we are going to have to keep addressing other issues because we have a long way to go yet.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for a very insightful speech on Bill C-15.

One of the things the member mentioned was the way in which particularly the Conservative government tends to ignore local input. For instance, I wonder if he sees some parallels with the way the Conservatives ignore local input and local priorities in the way the rail service in his area has been treated. I wonder if he sees any parallels with the bill before us on that.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think many people have seen those parallels on so many levels.

Again, I underline that sometimes the Conservative government seems to make decisions that are ideologically driven. There does not seem to be concern for making sure there is long-term prosperity in our regions. There seems to be more concern that certain people benefit from changes, but the vast majority of people are simply going to have to pay for it in the end.

The train service in eastern Canada is a great example. We keep hearing that it does not make enough money. Well, I challenge any rail service in North America on whether it is actually making money or not.

The question here is why the government seems to be bent on certain decisions more than others.

I will raise a question for the government as far as railways are concerned. Why are we funding a railway between Toronto and Peterborough that has doubtful use when we could be funding railways in other parts of the country that have a proven use?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his support of the devolution agreement, which is obviously very important to the Northwest Territories.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked a question and did not really get a clear answer from the member opposite, and so maybe I could help.

The Mackenzie Valley board was looked at from the models they looked at in the Yukon territory. They had an example of devolution to look back on, and they used those lessons to improve upon the situation they have right now.

One of the things that the Yukon does with its regional representation, with the centralized board, is to have district offices in those communities to ensure that they are providing support and input into the board. Therefore, the great people of the Northwest Territories in those communities will still continue to have localized and regional input on a centralized board, which will make the process effective and efficient.

I hope that answers some of the questions that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands asked. If she would like to talk to me further about the Yukon experience, I would be more than happy to do that. Perhaps the member opposite would like to join in on that conversation with me at a later time as well. I would be more than happy to help them understand that process.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention. Unfortunately, it did not really address anything in the bill, but rather questions for the Yukon. We are talking about the Northwest Territories here.

It is too bad the member did not take the time to address the needs of the first nations in the Northwest Territories. I am glad that he found accommodation in the Yukon, but here we will have to try to find a way to accommodate other first nations, which are outside of his riding.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue in the same vein as my last speech on Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. Today I will talk about the capacity for alienation of the collective heritage in terms of aboriginal rights and the practical outcome of the ratification of modern treaties and agreements between the crown and the first nations. I spoke to this bill at second reading about three days ago, so it is still fresh in my mind.

Bill C-15 provides an opportunity to talk about a number of topics that are too often ignored or that remain obscure to the Canadian public. The prerogatives that are exercised in relation to traditional territories, as well as these matters and clarifications, will help elucidate why certain groups raise objections when the government decides to sit down with a band and sign an agreement or document that could potentially alienate or be detrimental to other communities.

The case we are talking about today has been challenged by other bands. The Canadian public has noticed a lack of homogeneity, and that is true. Dissent and overlapping claims can lead to opposition when an agreement is ratified with a group or a band. That is not limited to this situation with the Northwest Territories. We see it all across the country, which is why it is necessary to focus on this today, so that we can shed new light on the issue.

I want to point out that this particular piece of legislation was negotiated and there was consent. There are no doubts about this in the case of Bill C-15 and the associated agreement and regulations. A number of stakeholders in committee said as much and spoke about economic growth. We must always keep that in mind. Above all, we are talking about an economic agreement and initiative. There is no question that this was negotiated and there was consent. However, there are a number of other similar vagaries and problems that we can examine.

Our support at third reading also shows that we recognize that this economic initiative is based in negotiations. However, this leads me to the issue of overlapping claims and overriding prerogatives.

I often talk about a quasi-proprietary title. This points to the fact that first nations members—even though the title is often collective, it is in fact divisible—enjoy prerogatives in relation to given territories. In this case, we are talking about traditional territories, and the same is true for me and for the Innu and Naskapi communities of Manicouagan. Traditional territories come with prerogatives for first nations members.

When bands are called on to negotiate, there may be a sort of disavowal on the part of community members. It is always important to keep in mind that Indian bands are products of the Indian Act. In my informed view, that is why negotiations and agreements ratified by bands lose legitimacy to a certain extent when members do not fully participate.

It is also important to keep in mind that those titles and prerogatives are divisible even though they are collective. That is why this government should always both consult and seek approval. It must do more than just consult, because consultations are quite restrictive. So far, the Conservatives have demonstrated a rather limited view of consultation, which boils down to taking notes at the bottom of the page and covering up issues that have resurfaced, in order to move forward with their economic development agenda.

When there is consultation or, rather, when it is looking for approval, the government—or future governments, because I hope that this will be considered by whoever governs next—should first and foremost look for approval from the public, from first nations members as individuals, through a referendum or other democratic means. This would limit opposition and there would be more support from the public. It would be easier for the public and first nations members to support a given initiative, and it is clear that certain initiatives in 2014 do not have that support.

Opposition to economic initiatives, even joint ones, that have an effect on the prerogatives of third parties illustrates the need for the government to recognize the pre-eminence of the quasi-proprietary title that first nations members have to their respective traditional territories. I will also discuss the highly contentious and recurrent nature of the overlapping occupation of territories, and I will talk about the collective, but also divisible, nature of prerogatives that are exercised in relation to the territory.

In light of the prerogatives that are exercised in relation to territories—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the hon. member for Yukon rising on a point of order?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have been diligently listening to the member's address to the House.

We are three, four, maybe five minutes deep into it and I have yet to hear the words “Northwest Territories” or “devolution” mentioned once. We are here to debate that piece of legislation.

The member has introduced that he is now about to talk about land occupation, which invariably will take another three minutes, and I am certain that might run him up to about eight minutes. That leaves two minutes for him to talk about the Northwest Territories devolution act.

Hopefully we can hear something about the Northwest Territories devolution.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the intervention by the hon. member. Members may recall, however, that members have a great deal of freedom to express their views.

In this case, the hon. member, early in his comments, drew a comparison to the things that he would be saying, related to the question before the House. I am sure the hon. member will be bringing that around before the end of the time that is allocated to him.

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our friends across the aisle would do well to take some notes on land occupation, because the lack of support and the general outcry can be felt and heard here in Ottawa, from first nations groups that are more sure of themselves and increasingly bitter. Furthermore, the government will have to negotiating with them on a day-to-day basis. It should therefore pay attention to these matters related to Indian identity, on the one hand, and on the titles that apply to the lands and land occupation, on the other hand. That is the crux of the issue, the name of the game, and the government should take note.

In short, this government would do well to focus more on winning the approval of first nations members and not simply go and negotiate and ratify agreements with band representatives. Once again, let me clarify, they are elected under the Indian Act. Their responsibilities, their “Indianness” and their jurisdiction are limited to reserve lands. The Indian Act is limited to reserve lands, and I cannot emphasize this point enough, even though, technically, this kind of reasoning does not necessarily apply to the Northwest Territories or Bill C-15 today. However, this is a recurring theme. These things warrant discussion and the entire Canadian population needs to know.

When I am in Manicouagan, I personally tell members in my own community that the band council has no authority over traditional territories. When agreements are ratified, the transparency of which is sometimes negotiated, I tell the members of my community that it is important for them to take a stand and that the government should seek their consent; they should not just be satisfied with an agreement ratified by the government and the band council only.

In short, if the government is interested in promoting dialogue and creating a more harmonious environment for dealing with aboriginal issues and disputes, it would do well to focus on these concepts, including the use of traditional lands, which is a key component.

I submit this respectfully.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Manicouagan will have a minute left, if he wishes to take the time, and when the House next returns to debate on the question, he will have his usual five minutes for questions and comments.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulations, be read the third time and passed.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my burgeoning fan club from all sides of the House of Commons.

I want to talk about this act from several aspects. The key aspect is with respect to the ownership of one's destiny and being the principal beneficiary of one's own resource.

We have had several issues in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador for the past 20 years, starting with the Atlantic accord and then going through its revisions.

Federal jurisdiction belongs to the offshore areas of oil and gas exploration and so forth, so the royalties came into the federal coffers. It was pointed out that because the oil and gas exists off the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the same applies to Nova Scotia, that it belongs to those provinces and to the benefit of the people of those provinces. That is what we mean by being the principal beneficiaries of those resources.

Revisions have been made over the years. There were a lot of battles, even within the House of Commons. In 2004-05, then once again in 2007-10, we saw the battles that raged. However, at the end of the day, both Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians became the principal beneficiaries of their own resources.

There is a great sense of nationalism for any country that would endeavour to do that. It is one thing to allow a portion of a country's population to have more autonomy politically, but to do it in the sense of economic nationalization is good too. It allows people to manage their own resources and to be the principal beneficiary of their own resources.

That brings us to Bill C-15. Here we have a devolution process that does just that.

There are discrepancies that we want to talk about. Naturally, there is a to and fro in the debate. That is the natural course of things.

Our party has certain issues with some of the matters contained within the legislation, as do other parties. That is why we are here and debating this. I am happy to speak to Bill C-15 for that very reason, to ensure that the principal beneficiaries of the resources are fully compensated.

Bill C-15 is an act to replace the Northwest Territories Act to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, and to repeal or make amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which I will talk about a bit later, and other acts and certain orders and regulations.

The devolution of responsibilities in the Northwest Territories is cause for celebration, especially for the people of the north. They will have a much greater say in the future of their lands and resources by becoming principal beneficiaries.

The act will see the transfer of responsibility for resources and water, as well as public lands, from the federal government to the Government of the Northwest Territories. It continues the work started decades ago to give the people of the Northwest Territories the governance that they deserve. We can all think back to the work of former Liberal prime minister Lester B. Pearson, and his government, who established the advisory commission, otherwise known as the Carruthers Commission, and the development of a government in the Northwest Territories.

The commission consulted with people across the north. It concluded in its report that they deserved to have their government established in the north, not in Ottawa, where it had been until then, so that the people could play a more vital role in their government and its ability to represent the people of the Northwest Territories. This established Yellowknife as the capital and moved the territorial seat of government to that region. Decades later, Yellowknife has continued to blossom as the seat of government for the Northwest Territories, thanks in part to this important step. We can be proud that today business in the Northwest Territories is booming. I should know because several of my friends who I grew up with in Newfoundland and Labrador make a good living in the Northwest Territories.

There is a new generation of young Canadians living in the north who are ready to be the leaders of today and the future. Those are the words of the member of Parliament for Labrador, who is also our critic for the north. She also said we must do everything we can to ensure that all territories have the tools and governance they need to empower young Canadians to be part of the economic driver of this country, as the north has become.

She continued that we want to make it easier to conduct business in the North and to have business invest in the North. This in turn would create jobs and generate higher tax revenues, which devolution would provide to the Government of Northwest Territories, as one would expect, and to participating aboriginal governments as well. As a result, they could work to improve social programs and the social safety net, invest in local culture, attract new tourism and trade, and draw new people to the area.

While we are optimistic about the future of the Northwest Territories and its devolution agreement, which we are debating today, it is important to ensure that this act lives up to what it has set out to do under the guidance of the Premier of the Northwest Territories, Bob McLeod, and his government, as well as the many aboriginal governments and their leaders. These individuals have spent years working to gain a concrete devolution agreement and to ensure that it meets the needs of northern Canadians. Unfortunately, the current government has let down the people in our north on many occasions in the last number of years. Because of this, we need to ensure that this act has the consensus support of the people of the Northwest Territories.

The often deplorable conditions on aboriginal reserves and the total lack of social support for many communities has been sad and, indeed, unacceptable. I think of the Kelowna accord and the potential it had to bring positive change to aboriginal peoples across Canada for economic development, education, health care, and housing, and that it was this Prime Minister who turned his back on the accord.

Bill C-15 needs to properly address the needs of aboriginal peoples with respect to proper governance and decision-making over resources and, of course, water. We need to have an open dialogue with those living in the Northwest Territories so that we start righting so many of the wrongs they have had to live through over the years.

One thing that is certain and has come up within this debate and caused us concern on this side of the House is that we need to take a look at the consolidation of multiple land and water boards, and what is called in this legislation “the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act”, which is a big part of this devolution act. This has the potential to play a major role with some of the aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories. As currently proposed, they are losing seats on their boards in an effort to streamline the boards into one superboard and make it easier for businesses to thrive. It is imperative that we find the right balance to continue to give a strong voice to the various aboriginal governments, while at the same time fostering economic growth in the entire region.

Indeed, all parties at the table here would like to see more growth and success for the region. Since the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act is a major part of this legislation, Bill C-15, we need to ask why such a large portion of this bill dealing with the local amalgamation of land and water boards is part of the devolution agreement, and why it does not stand on its own as a separate bill. I sincerely hope this act receives the attention it deserves for granting more responsibilities to the local aboriginal governments and the Government of the Northwest Territories and that this Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act does not overshadow the achievements of other parts of the bill.

Another area of concern is the revenue formula for the territorial and aboriginal governments. The financial benefits from resource developments are numerous and should not disproportionately go toward the federal government. This is especially true for a number of reasons, the primary one being the challenges that our territories face and our provinces do not. Given the small number of inhabitants, spread-out communities and vastness of the land, the Government of the Northwest Territories needs adequate amount of revenue from resource development to meet these unique challenges. Certainly that is a point of interest, because provinces over the past 10 years have managed to put themselves in a “have” position primarily because of revenue from natural resources.

As for the roads, they are getting worse because of increased traffic. We can also talk more generally about the infrastructure there. Over time, of course, it is getting worse. The Northwest Territories is experiencing a similar strain on its infrastructure as a result of the mining and the resource boom. Therefore, the revenue from these resources must adequately compensate the government for its increased infrastructure costs, because of the exponential increase in the resource development in these areas.

When it comes to lowering the costs of travel in the north, there must be room for governments to assist people. People often must travel great distance to access the health care and important services they need. We need to address these dire issues, and the Conservative government needs to recognize this when establishing the revenue sharing agreement on resources.

I am also concerned about the issue of offshore resource development and shipping. With the discovery and potential of massive resource deposits off the coast of the Northwest Territories, the federal government must be clear on whose responsibility it is when it comes to developing these resources and ensuring that adequate environmental regulations are in place and in force.

While this bill spends much of its text discussing the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, it does not spend enough time discussing the resource development of non-freshwater regions of the Northwest Territories. With the increase in shipping and the development of offshore resources in the north, I am concerned about a lack of focus in this bill. Since the government is addressing land and water issues in this devolution bill, it is only fair to also include the necessary clauses with regard to the offshore issues.

Now is not the time to avoid addressing these very important issues. We know for a fact that circumpolar traffic has increased substantially with the demand for oil and gas reserves outside of the traditional areas these reserves have been found, because we are now discovering more fields in Canada's north. As a result, there is increased traffic of large freighters in these areas, and not just from Canada but from places such as Norway and Russia, through to Iceland, Greenland, and Alaska.

I remain hopeful that the minister and his department can resolve the concerns my colleagues have about this bill, given that we would all like to see the Northwest Territories achieve successful devolution.

During the last Liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Martin we reached a concrete framework on devolution in the Northwest Territories. We had a timeline of a few years to get the deal done and in place. It is unfortunate that it has taken this long to finalize the agreement, particularly given the overwhelming support for devolution and the success that Yukon and Nunavut territories have had following their own devolution agreements.

Nevertheless, I welcome today as the beginning of the end of this long journey. Together, with hope and hard work, we can work out any issues quickly and move to brighten the future for the people, the residents of the Northwest Territories, so they too can be principal beneficiaries of their own resources.

We would like to thank the Premier of the Northwest Territories, Bob McLeod, as well as his government for the hard work to get this devolution agreement organized. I would also like to thank the many aboriginal governments and their leaders who worked tirelessly with the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government to find a solution that will benefit everyone in the north.

This is truly a moment that we all can be proud of for the residents of Northwest Territories, for the residents of the north. With crumbling infrastructure and the need to meet the promises made to protect our social safety net for the people of the north, we must make sure that this devolution process is one that does not hinder the development of the people, how they live, and their standard of living.

Environmental guards must be put in place. Many other measures must be put in place so that we can have a successful devolution and both levels of government can manage this directly. Again, we thank the Government of Northwest Territories for doing this.

Just as a final note, I had mentioned resource revenue-sharing earlier. A lot of the arguments that we have heard in the House and elsewhere, including other legislatures across the country, all 13 of them, are about resource development as a cash grab or something that is extra or beyond, the cream of the crop or the gravy over the main meal, something that is an add-on to the services we provide to our people. That is not the case.

To become a principal beneficiary of one's own resource is to provide the fundamental programs by which we live as citizens. We all know, with a great deal of bias and rightly so, that we live in the best country in the world. That achievement is not just a measure of gross domestic product. It is not just a measure of how much we export compared to what we import. It is the measure by which we sustain our communities, whether they are working or have jobs, yes, and whether they have the ability to succeed and create more, yes, that is fundamental too. But it is also fundamental to look after our neighbours and our communities, such that our communities will benefit from all the resources.

We have seen time and time again major international corporations come within our jurisdiction, whether on the land or offshore. They have come here to fulfill their own goals for corporate profit, for their own standards of providing more value to their shareholders.

We must remember that the goal for the principal beneficiary is not a quick profit for a shareholder or to invest more in other oil, gas, or mining developments around the world. The goal is for the principle beneficiary to increase the standard of living within the community, including having a better hospital, affordable daycare, a better community for children. This is not just about boutique tax credits for people who feel that is the be all and end all for creating a better community. It is about bringing a community into a better light for all its citizens to share in.

This is what we go through to make sure that the devolution of an essential power from Ottawa goes to a particular region. I spoke earlier about Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The devolution process is an element of good governance. Good governance filters through to the basic degrees of society so that society can benefit, so that society can provide a better community for its own children.

Sometimes we get caught up in the minutia or intricacies of a deal, for instance, whether one particular environmental assessment will hinder or benefit a community. That has to be within legislation. We have to do this right, because it will be hard to fix when it is done. Therefore, we must have a complete debate in order for that to happen. I thank all my hon. colleagues for doing this.

The devolution process is an exercise in ensuring that the average citizen in the smallest community in the Northwest Territories is as large a principal beneficiary as the average citizen living in Yellowknife, just as it would be for the entire country.

We congratulate the aboriginal governments. They too want only the best for their communities. They do not want to see any giveaways taking place. They do not want to see any giveaways that would feed only into a corporation that gives itself a bigger profit.

We need to make sure that these people are involved so that they too are not the only principal beneficiaries of the economic benefits, but the actual stewards of the environment, thereby making sure that no footprint is left that would be detrimental to the environment and the beautiful landscape in the north. More beautiful than that would be a standard of living they can give to their own children, which to me would be a lasting testament of what we consider to be the devolution of power, one that would benefit the smallest community in the Northwest Territories as well as the largest.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech in support of Bill C-15, which has been a long time coming.

I too want to salute Premier Bob McLeod and the Government of the Northwest Territories. We heard from him when I was in Yellowknife with the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. We also heard from many stakeholders, including the premier, who said clearly that, “We need an efficient and effective regulatory system in the Northwest Territories that protects the public interests, allows us to manage our land and environment, and promotes responsible development”.

The member spoke about making sure that this does not just benefit corporations and resource development companies. According to the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines, resource development is the biggest employer of aboriginals in the Northwest Territories, with over 50% of the mining workforce being aboriginal.

I wonder if my colleague would agree with me that in addition to devolution, it is important that we give the Northwest Territories a regulatory regime that is modern, efficient, and effective and would allow for continued investment in the Northwest Territories. This would not only benefit the government and the people there but the aboriginal community as well.