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

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

Mr. Speaker, I notice there has been quite a bit of consultation with the local chambers and the like. Again, the regulatory regime certainly is a great benefit for these people as it allows them to engage, no matter who the stakeholders are, in any particular resource development, whether it be from an environmental perspective, economic benefits, and everything else.

As an entire nation, we are now inching toward this principle when it comes to regulatory boards, and I think of our boards on the east coast of the country, whether it is the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board or the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

There are fixes that have to be put in place, but nonetheless, I think what the member is bringing up here is that the conversations have taken place, and we have matured to a point that the regulatory matters are far better than what they used to be. There are always areas of improvement, but engaging with local stakeholders, I think, is by far the greatest thing that could be accomplished from this, and I thank the member again for his point.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his contribution to this debate.

In five years, there is going to be a review on the changes to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Would the member's party be in favour of transferring more authority to the Northwest Territories in this case?

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

Mr. Speaker, personally, I am in favour of devolving everything that regards development and everything that would regard local decision-making.

I welcome the five-year review in this particular case. Obviously, given the magnitude of the agreement, I mean, it has taken a long time to do, and there are a lot of intricacies here that need yet to be explored.

Even when legislation is passed, I agree, and it should be beyond the five years. I mean, if we think about it, a devolution process really never ends. If something arises in the future, whether it is dictated by technology or changing circumstances of the resources itself, then obviously we would have to put a mechanism in place and devolution may be required yet again in the future.

I think that is an obvious question for all of us in this House who disagree with the centralization of local decision-making, which is really never a good thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor for his presentation. However, I could not help but reflect as he spoke at the beginning of his speech of when Newfoundlanders joined Confederation, which is in a lot of ways the opposite of devolution. I know a lot of friends in Newfoundland and Labrador who think that if the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans had not been put in charge of the cod stocks they might be fishing still, and I happen to agree with that.

However, in this case, in the context of devolution, which is supported by all sides of this House, we are seeing an additional piece, which makes Bill C-15 not unlike an omnibus bill. It is a completely different package of changes that would basically undo treaty negotiations.

I have cited other opinions from the Tlicho First Nation earlier in my speech today, but this started with Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus and four other chiefs voicing how they regard the changes to Bill C-15, and I quote:

…the very kind of sharp dealing and dishonourable conduct in the implementation of a modern treaty that the Supreme Court has unequivocally declared it [the federal government ] may not engage in.

I would ask my colleague for some comment.

Is it not a terrible shame to be put to a vote on something we all support, devolution, but include this unconstitutional affront to first nations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do agree.

I think in this particular case, and in many cases, we have seen submissions here from people who find that the federal government's assault on local governance is an absolute affront. Again, I go back to the principal beneficiaries, not just of the resources but of the whole land, and whether the management of the land is looked after by those locally. In this particular case, the member mentioned Grand Chief Erasmus, who brings up some valid points.

What bothers me though is that all of this is encapsulated in one particular piece of legislation. I spoke on that, and on another part of the bill, the water management, which should also be spun into different legislation. There is a possibility of that. I realize it takes time, but it is the responsible thing to do. I agree with the member's assessment, and the assessment that many people have within the aboriginal groups, who certainly have their own issues with this.

I hope that the three parties here, the aboriginal groups, the Northwest Territories governance, as well as the Conservative government and its particular department, work this out in the near future. I do not know if it will be worked out within this legislation. However, it certainly is a shame that we do not have those extras put aside, whether they be spun off into different legislation or not.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments my colleague made, because historically, Liberal governments said that the Northwest Territories was not ready for devolution. Over the years they were in power, that was the way they looked at it.

My colleague mentioned the issue of land and water use and representation on the boards. One of the governments in the Northwest Territories, the Tlicho government, has indicated that it wants to stay with regional boards as opposed to going with one big board. I am wondering if he can understand the concerns of the Tlicho government and others who have raised this issue, specifically with respect to the treaty partner.

I quote from the Tlicho: “As your treaty partner, I am writing to ask that you reconsider the path Canada is currently on in relation to the MVRMA amendments”.

They talk about the fact that the government will be finding itself before the courts, given the fact that it constitutes a breach of their agreement and the honour of the crown. Does he have as much concern about that as we do?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes I do. I think I heard her correctly. The particular government she was talking about has significant, meaningful, decision-making in relation to Wek'èezhii for as long as this land shall last. This was one of the fundamental tenets of the constitutional compact we reached to reconcile our aboriginal titles and rights with crown sovereignty. She has a valid point.

On her other point, the Liberals started the advisory commission on the development of the Northwest Territories. That was Lester B. Pearson. On of the important subject of devolution, the governments of prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin worked for the devolution of the Yukon and Nunavut territories and started the process of devolution for the Northwest Territories. I am not quite sure which particular Liberal government she is talking about. This one was certainly involved. Perhaps she would like to clarify which Liberals she is talking about, because I do not know.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[An. hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?