Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the House on Bill C-15, a very important piece of Canadian constitutional legislation. The bill would amend the Northwest Territories Act. We sometimes forget the importance of some of these foundational statutes. The NWT Act is essentially part of the Constitution of Canada, and we are amending it through this legislation.
Not long ago, in 1867, the Fathers of Confederation had a change made by a statute in England called the British North America Act. That is just another statute. This is just another statute. However, it has incredibly important ramifications for the people of the Northwest Territories, and therefore for all of Canada.
I want to start by saluting the work of the premier of the NWT, Mr. McLeod, for his negotiations and his patience in negotiating an arrangement with the Government of Canada. While I am at it, I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Western Arctic, who has shown remarkable leadership in this entire process in educating some of us southerners about what this means to people who live and work in the NWT.
I want to start with those words of congratulations. I also want to echo something my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands said. She used an adjective to characterize her reaction to this important initiative, and that was the word “disappointed”. We must be disappointed at a bill that had such promise, which could have brought us all together in support of this remarkable enterprise of devolution. I agree with much of what the Conservatives have said, including the parliamentary secretary, who talked about the remarkable impact of a bill like this on economic development, jobs, and the future of the NWT.
Therefore, why would I be disappointed? I am disappointed that the government has seen fit to essentially ignore the wishes of aboriginal partners in the NWT, the Tlicho, the Sahtu, the Gwich'in peoples, who all want the regional boards that exist there and appear to function well. They were created as part of co-management, as part of a land claims agreement. They are part of a constitutional fabric that has been negotiated in modern times. They are disappointed that they are being replaced by a superboard.
Therefore, instead of being here and joyously celebrating an event that is important in our constitutional history, what we are doing today, as my friend said, is expressing disappointment in the government for once again doing what our leader, the hon. member for Outremont, characterized as “bundling”. I did not say “bungling”; I said “bundling”. It bundled things that we would traditionally all want to support, to stand and salute, with measures that are poison pills, to use a word that my colleague from Surrey North used earlier in this debate. That is why I am disappointed. This could have been a joyous event, but in fact it is a disappointing one.
I have seen those examples in recent weeks in this Parliament. I have seen how, in the safe injection bill, the government managed to find a way to oppose that, and, of course, in the unfair elections bill that was debated yesterday where closure was invoked. That is another example where Conservatives have put some nice measures in that we would love to support, but then they spoil it with things that no sensible parliamentarian could support if they believe in fair elections.
Therefore, I am anxious to see why the government feels it can disrespect aboriginal leaders in this way and expect us to support such an initiative. Do not take my word for it; I am not making this up for rhetorical purposes. On November 18, 2013, Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus, of the Tlicho First Nation in the NWT, said this in a letter written to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development:
As your treaty partner, I am writing to ask that you reconsider the path Canada is currently on in relation to the MVRMA [Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act] amendments. ...Canada is proceeding with an approach that is inconsistent with a proper interpretation of provisions in our Agreement and will constitute a breach of our Agreement and the honour of the Crown. This would result in the MVRMA being constitutionally unsound and of no force and effect to the extent that it breaches our Agreement. Canada's current approach will also damage our relationship and create regulatory uncertainty.... We hope this does not come to pass. There is a better way to move forward.
That is exactly so. There is a better way to move forward than to bundle such unpopular and unnecessary legislation into a bill that deals with something so fundamental: namely, devolution.
What is devolution? What would be the impact of this? Essentially, the NWT would keep half of its resource royalties, without losing federal transfers, up to a total of 5% of its budget expenditures. It would get some of the powers that provinces have. It would become a more representative government, a more democratic government, with the resources to do what is needed to meet its demands in the NWT.
Those royalties are just part of what would go on in this kind of initiative. Of the three northern territories, only the Yukon controls its own resources; Nunavut negotiations are still ongoing. This kind of initiative, as I am told, would allow the territory to reap about $65 million a year from resource royalties. There is about 18% of that which would be transferred to the five aboriginal governments that signed on. Ottawa would send another $65 million to the NWT to compensate for the cost of those responsibilities, including the salaries of federal bureaucrats who would go to the NWT payroll.
The concept of devolution was originally agreed to in October 2010. Here we are, in 2014, about to pass, perhaps, an initiative that is long overdue.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, who said earlier in this debate that we need a robust resource regulatory system and better land management regimes or the developers would not be coming to create jobs and economic opportunity in that territory.
However, I am told by my colleague from Western Arctic that when we had committee hearings recently in Yukon, the overwhelming desire was to leave the resource regulatory boards in place. That is something that needs to be emphasized.
In emphasizing that, I want to read from an editorial in the NWT News, which was apparently written yesterday, about this very arrangement that we are talking about. It says a number of things, but let us talk about the superboard that the current government insists on making part of this initiative, the poisoned pill that I mentioned earlier.
The editorial in yesterday's NWT News states:
Whether Ottawa has the right to create a super board in the NWT is Irrelevant. What matters is three groups of people fought hard for the right to self-government and negotiated in good faith for the right to help shape decisions at the regional level. They have been abandoned by their government.
Accepting the linkage[s] of the two distinctly different legislative bills affecting the NWT betrays the Sahtu, [the] Tlicho and [the] Gwich'in governments who all worked with the [Government of the NWT] until they had built the trust to sign onto the devolution. The Gwich'in went so far as to drop a lawsuit that might have held up the deal.
It goes on to say:
While devolution is undeniably good for the NWT, what the [Government of the NWT] is losing [in return]--regional input, trust and co-operation...--tarnishes the accomplishment.
Worse, this so-called super board is nothing more than a public relations move to placate the global, cash-starved mining industry at the expense of Northerners.
I want to salute the government for finally negotiating a devolution agreement, which is so critical to our country, for the constitutional change it would make to our country. However, I wish it would reconsider what the northerners want them to reconsider, which is the creation of an unnecessary superboard.
